Moti Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3805 of 2025

Moti Lal Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Others	Home Lko. And 5 .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ajai Kumar Yadav, Ashish Kumar Bhardwaj, Babita Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 7

¶7

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Ajai Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner had made a mention when the Court assembled in the morning that his matter bearing Writ Petition No.3805 of 2025 (A-227) is extremely urgent, wherein the petitioner is neither the borrower nor the guarantor and yet the Bank is proceeding to interfere in the possession of the petitioner.

¶10

It is in the aforesaid circumstances that this petition was taken as a first case in the morning.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that the petitioner be granted an opportunity to place his case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow, wherein the order dated 09.05.2025 has been passed and till such time the matter is decided by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, the further proceedings be stayed.

¶12

At the outset, it may be noticed that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not coherent. It is in this view that the Court had to look into the entire brief and the record indicates that the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶13

A227 No. 3805 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

"1) direct the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VIIth i.e. the Opposite party No.3 to giving opportunity to be heard to the Petitioner and decide the case by taking on record all the relevant and true facts in Case No.80611/24 InRe, Hero Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Moti Lal Yadav and others because the order dated 09/05/2025 Passed by Opposite Party No.3 is obtained fraudulently by Opposite Party No.4. The Opposite Party No.4 did not disclose all the true facts and made fraud with the mislead the Learned Court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VIIth) i.e. the Opposite party No.3 to obtain the order. Thus order dated 09/05/2025 Passed by Opposite Party No.3 (InRe Case No.80611/24, Hero Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Moti Lal Yadav and others) be stayed till fair trial is done, in the interest of justice.

¶16

issue any other writ, order, direction in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite parties which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶17

The record also indicates that the petitioner is a borrower from the Hero Housing Finance Ltd. The record also indicates that the petitioner had approached the Division Bench of this Court by means of WRIT-C No.7544 of 2024, wherein by means of the order dated 03.09.2024, the Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of maintainability, however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

¶18

At this stage, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has approached the appropriate forum to which he had answered in negative.

¶19

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record and taking note of the fact that certain proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act of 2002') were initiated against the petitioner. As on date and as per the petitioner himself, no proceedings have been initiated by him before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶20

A227 No. 3805 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

As far as the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, is concerned, they were proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and even the said proceedings have been decided on 09.05.2025 as evident from Annexure No.1 placed on record and there is no challenge to it. The prayer as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶23

It is in this view of the matter, the petition is completely misconceived and it is dismissed .

¶24

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶25

September 12, 2025

¶26

Rakesh/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Moti Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Thru. G.M. Vs M/s Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd., Thru. Authorized Signatory Harish Kumar Sharma

Mayank Verma Pno NO.182372517 Vs Chairman State Public Services Tribunal U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Devanath Vs Sandhya Chaudhary Adj 2ND/ Special Judge Sc/St (P.a.) Act Sultanpur

Ram Sagar vs Bhola and Another

Riyasat Ali and Anr. Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Station Road Sitapur and Ors.

Raja Ram Sahu Vs Ankit Shukla S.D.M., Sadar, Lko. and Another