Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/3286/2023 of M/S BAKSHI TRADERS Vs DISTRICT MAGISTATE, KUPWARA AND ORS. (JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED) on 7 November 2025
No. 3 REGULAR CAUSE LIST HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 3286/2023 CM(7883/2023) M/S BAKSHI TRADERS …Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Umiya Bashir, Advocate Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTATE KUPWARA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jaffer Ahmad, Advocate CORAM:
Serial No. 3
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 3286/2023
CM(7883/2023)
M/S BAKSHI TRADERS
…Petitioner(s)
Through:
Ms. Umiya Bashir, Advocate
Vs.
DISTRICT MAGISTATE KUPWARA AND
ORS.
...Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr. Jaffer Ahmad, Advocate
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Parihar, Judge.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
07.11.2025
1. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner is a notice bearing No. DCK/LS/ALO/1663-34 dated 02.12.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara for seizure and taking possession of the assets of the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
2. Vide order dated 26.05.2025, this Court while admitting the petition, stayed the further proceedings Nuzhat Shafi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.11.2025 17:40
in terms of impugned order subject to deposit of 50% of the amount due.
3. On 18.07.2025, two weeks further time was granted to the petitioner to do the needful.
4. The matter was listed for consideration on 20.08.2025, and 19.09.2025.
5. Despite availing several opportunities and extensions from this Court, the petitioner failed to comply with the directions of this Court and make the requisite deposit.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 when the factum of loan has not been disputed nor the issuance of notice under section 13(2) has been assailed.
7. That apart, the petitioner having failed to comply with the interim order of this Court and make the deposit 50% of the loan amount due has forfeited his right to Nuzhat Shafi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.11.2025 17:40
invoke the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court, this appeal found devoid of merit and same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar)
(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge
Judge
SRINAGAR: 07.11.2025 “S.NUZHAT”
Nuzhat Shafi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.11.2025 17:40
Nuzhat Shafi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.11.2025 17:40