2026:HHC:790 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.20268 of 2025 Decided on: 01 st January , 2026 ____________________________________________________ M/s Maurice Appliances ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the challenge is raised to the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “ SARFAESI Act”), dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by the District Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. 2. Apparently, that has been done on account of the fact 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that initially a notice dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) was served upon the petitioner showing that there was lack of repayment of the loan amount taken and it had become NPA on 31.03.2024. Resultantly, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 16.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), raising a demand of Rs.1,74,22,579.07/- as due on 02.12.2024 along with future interest thereon. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the said notice was responded to. The bank has also taken out proceedings for recovery by filing an O.A. No.127 of 2025 titled State Bank of India vs. M/s Maurice Appliances and the proceedings are also pending which is clear from the order passed by the Recovery Officer-II, Debts Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh (DRT-I) dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-13), wherein, the petitioner has also put in appearance. 4. Thereafter, the possession notice was also issued on 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby the symbolic possession was taken of the property and in such circumstances, the order under Section 14 of the Act has been passed by the District Magistrate, Kullu (H.P) on 19.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), after recording his satisfaction that the obligations have been fulfilled 3 under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. 5. On 22.12.2025, we had put it to the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had to seek instructions to show his bonafides to deposit a reasonable amount before this Court so that we could issue notice as apparently there is an alternate remedy available to challenge the said proceedings before the DRT, Chandigarh. Today no tangible amount has been offered which would show his bonafides against the huge outstanding amount which has accrued as such. 6. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the observations of the Apex Court in South Indian Bank Limited and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, (2023) 17 SCC 311, and PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others, (2024) 6 SCC 579, that this Court as such would not be vested with jurisdiction in view of an alternative efficacious remedy available. It is not that the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act had taken the petitioner by surprise, as the matter has been pending for over one year, when firstly notice dated 18.10.2024 was issued to the petitioner by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered 4 opinion that no case is made out to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 8. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 01 st January , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge