Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta, Justice Subhash Upadhyay)
Order Date: 16 July 2026
Case Overview
- Writ Petition (M/B) No.565 of 2026 filed by Canara Bank (Petitioner) against M/s Uttaranchal Auto Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and others (Respondents).
- Original application under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was filed by the bank and allowed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on 29 July 2019.
- Recovery Officer of DRT issued an order on 19 January 2020; respondents appealed under Section 30 of the Act.
- During appeal proceedings, the DRT office identified a court‑fee shortfall of Rs. 29,750/‑; the deficiency was later paid, and the Registrar, DRT, Dehradun recorded this in an order dated 02 February 2026, registering the appeal as Appeal No. 02 of 2026.
- An urgency application (I.A. No. 97 of 2026) was filed, and the matter was listed for hearing on 04 February 2026.
- On 04 February 2026 the bank filed written objections, contending that the appeal was filed without the mandatory deposit of 50 % of the debt determined by the Tribunal.
- The case was adjourned on 09 March 2026 at the respondents’ request; the Presiding Officer directed that the original recovery record be returned to the Recovery Officer to avoid stalling the recovery process.
- Subsequent adjournments led to the last order dated 07 May 2026, fixing the next hearing for 06 July 2026, which was later pushed to September 2026.
- The petitioner sought: (i) setting aside the Registrar’s order of 02 Feb 2026; (ii) setting aside the Presiding Officer’s order of 04 Feb 2026; and (iii) a mandamus directing the Recovery Officer to decide RC No. 358/2019 expeditiously.
Final Outcome
- The Court found no sufficient ground to set aside the Registrar’s order registering the appeal and dismissed the writ petition.
- The order dated 04 Feb 2026, which summoned the original recovery record, was also upheld; the Court noted that the record had already been returned to the Recovery Officer on 09 Mar 2026, so the grievance of stalled recovery was not sustainable.
- The Court directed the DRT to decide the specific objection under Section 30A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 on the next hearing date and, until such decision, to refrain from passing any orders on the merits of the recovery case.
- No stay was granted; the recovery proceedings continue, with the next hearing scheduled for September 2026.
Topics: Debt Recovery, Banking Litigation