Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
M/S Hindustan Metal Products vs Jammu And Kashmir Bank Limited And on 28 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No.03
REGULAR LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 2089/2024 CM(5595/2024)
c/w i)WP(C) 2093/2024
M/S HINDUSTAN METAL PRODUCTS ... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: None
Vs.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED AND ...Respondent(s)
ORS.
Through: Mr. Waseem Gul, GA for 3 & 4
Mr. Iman Abdul Muizz, Advocate vice
Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawja, Advocate for 1 & 2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGEORDE R
28.07.2025WP (C) No. 2089/2024
1. Impugned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is an order dated 15th April, 2024, passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, without specifically challenging the order
issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act.
2. That apart, vide order dated 23rd October, 2024, this Court, while
granting time to the respondents to file objections, stayed the
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, subject to deposit of 50%
of the amount due to the Bank within a period of four weeks.
3. The order was not complied with and, therefore, vide order dated
29.04.2025, the Bank was asked to go ahead with the recovery of
the amount by proceedings against the secured assets.
4. Today, when the case was called, nobody turned up to appear for
the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner, having failed to comply
with the order of this Court, is left with no cause to pursue this
petition.
Arif Hameed
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
28.07.2025
5. Otherwise also, a challenge to the notice under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, would not lie unless the notice under
Section 13 (2) is also challenged.
6. Having taken an overall view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has no case to maintain this
petition and, for this reason, has chosen not to appear.
7. Dismissed for non-prosecution.
WP (C) No. 2093/2024
8. Impugned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is an order dated 15th April, 2024, passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, without specifically challenging the order
issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act.
9. That apart, vide order dated 23rd October, 2024, this Court, while
granting time to the respondents to file objections, stayed the
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, subject to deposit of 50%
of the amount due to the Bank within a period of four weeks.
10. The order was not complied with and, therefore, vide order dated
29.04.2025, the Bank was asked to go ahead with the recovery of
the amount by proceedings against the secured assets.
11. Today, when the case was called, nobody turned up to appear for
the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner, having failed to comply
with the order of this Court, is left with no cause to pursue this
petition.
12. Otherwise also, a challenge to the notice under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, would not lie unless the notice under
Section 13 (2) is also challenged.
13. Having taken an overall view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has no case to maintain this
petition and, for this reason, has chosen not to appear.
14. Dismissed for non-prosecution.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arif Hameed SRINAGAR:
28.07.2025
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
"ARIF"
28.07.2025