M/S Kanak Overseas Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Akhilesh Kala and 2 Others vs Debts Recovery Tribunal,Lko.Thru. Its Registrar and 5 Others

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 30 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Kanak Overseas Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Akhilesh Kala And 2 Others

¶4

Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal,Lko.Thru. Its Registrar And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapish Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Shri G.S. Mishra, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that against the action of the respondent in taking steps under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, thereafter taking steps for auction and selling the land in question, an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was pending before the DRT. It is further argued that on the basis of an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, an order of possession came to be passed against the petitioners, which too was made subject matter of challenge in the application filed before the DRT.

¶10

It is argued that on account of there being extreme urgency, an application was filed before the DRT for early hearing. However, the DRT vide its order dated 1st January, 2025 noted that as the documents were not available, the matter could not be heard and the matter would be directed to be placed for hearing on 07.04.2025. It is argued that despite pendency of the said application, the respondent-Bank has physically removed the petitioners from the possession of the property in question. However, moveable goods belonging to the petitioner are still

¶11

lying in the premises being House No.C-42, Sector G, Aliganj, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh- 226024 and according to the petitioner, a lock was put on the premises with seal. It is argued that the petitioner was not even allowed to take out the moveable goods prior to putting of the lock by the respondent. It is fairly admitted that the possession on the paper has been transferred to the auction purchaser. However, the moveable assets are still lying in the premises in question.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, based on the instructions, states that the moveable assets kept in the house property, mentioned above, were handed over to the accompanied some officer and are not lying in the premises in question. He further states that the physical possession of the property has been handed over to the auction purchaser.

¶13

Considering the difference of stands taken by the parties with regard to the possession of the moveable assets, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint an Court Commissioner to ascertain the correctness of the rival contentions with regard to the possession of the moveable assets.

¶14

The Court appoints Shri Mohd. Asad, an Advocate practicing in this Court, as Court Commissioner. He shall visit the premises being House No.C-42, Sector G, Aliganj, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh- 226024 at 6:00 PM today and shall ascertain as to whether the moveable goods are lying within the premises or not. The seal put on the premises by the respondent-Bank shall be removed and an access will be allowed to the Court Commissioner inside the premises.

¶15

The SHO, Aliganj is also directed to assist the Court Commissioner in inspecting the premises. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India shall send a person authorized, who has put the seal over the premises for breaking the seal. In case, the

¶16

Bank has not put the seal, the Court Commissioner will be entitled to break open the locks with the help of the SHO, Aliganj and enter in the premises. After the inspection of the premises, he shall submit a detailed report along with the photographs of the goods kept in the premises by tomorrow. After the inspection is over, the Court Commissioner shall ensure that the premises is re-locked and the keys shall be retained by the Court Commissioner to be presented before this Court.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent are also permitted to go along with the Court Commissioner.

¶18

The Court Commissioner would be entitled to his fees @ Rs.50,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the Court Commissioner through banking channel. In addition to the said, if any other expenses occurred by the Court Commissioner shall also be borne by the petitioner.

¶19

List this matter tomorrow, i.e., 8th January, 2025 immediately after fresh cases for ascertaining the correct position.

¶20

Parties shall maintain status quo till tomorrow.

¶21

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties counsel today itself on payment of usual charges.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Ashutosh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Kanak Overseas Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Akhilesh Kala and 2 Others v. Debts Recovery Tribunal,Lko.Thru. Its Registrar and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kanak Overseas Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Akhilesh Kala and 2 Others v. Debts Recovery Tribunal,Lko.Thru. Its Registrar and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prakash Narain Nigam U/a 227 Vs Addl. District Judge Court NO.10 Lucknow and Ors.

Smt Roshan Jahan Vs Distt Judge Balrampur and Ors.

Ram Kumar and Ors. Vs Special Judge Gangster Act/a.D.J. Court NO.5 Unnao and Anr.

Axis Securities Ltd. Thru. the Managing Director and CEO and 2 Others vs Mrs. Renu Sharma

Kanchan Singh vs Rajiv Singh

Sirtaz Mohd. vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others