UKHC010062292026 2026:UHC:6230 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1013/2026 Amit Jain --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Additional CSC, for the State. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3. (2) According to petitioner, he took a loan from Bank of Maharashtra in the year 2018. Since the loan was not repaid in time, therefore, bank invoked provisions of SARFAESI Act for recovery of outstanding dues. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned attachment order dated 16.12.25 (annexure no. 9, page no 28 to 92 to this writ petition) issued by the respondent no.3 for a sum of Rs. 4,11,45,81.53/-, under SARFAESI Act, 2002. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of O.A no. 125/2022 (Bank of Maharashtra vs. Ms. Jain Agro & Ors.) pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent bank to respondent no. 4 to directs to respondent no. 3 settle the dispute to as per letter dated 20.11.25 by which a settlement has been taken place between the petitioner UKHC010062292026 2026:UHC:6230 and respondent no. 4 for a sum of Rs. 3 Cr (three corer) under OTS Scheme And till the disposal of the final settlement the attachment property in question i..e. House No. 182,182/1,182/2 situated at Patel Nagar new basti district Muzzafar Nagar and property over khasra no. 825/1 situated at village Miakhiivali tehsil and district Muzaffar Nagar, the order dated 16.12.25 may be kept in abeyance.” (3) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that bank had made an offer that outstanding dues can be settled by way of One Time Settlement, if petitioner pays three crores to the bank, out of which 25 per cent was to be deposited within three weeks; in terms of that offer made by the bank, petitioner deposited ₹75,00,000 with the bank and he is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of ₹2,25,00,000 with interest. (4) Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, learned Counsel appearing for the bank, submits that he has no objection if petitioner is permitted to approach the competent authority by making a representation. (5) Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the Branch Manager concerned. If he makes representation within ten days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within three weeks thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 22.7.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e 61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB 588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.07.23 18:03:28 +05'30' UKHC010062292026 2026:UHC:6230