M/S Zaid Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mr. Mohd.Islam and Another Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35636

Court No. - 2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3818 of 2025

Petitioner :- M/S Zaid Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mr. Mohd.Islam And Another Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Aniket Raj,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners today is taken on record.

¶8

2. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajeev Singh Chauhan, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Aniket Raj, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, DCB Bank Limited.

¶9

3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitisation Application No.131 of 2025, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the petitioners' application for condonation of delay in filing the securitisation application. After rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has further

¶10

written in the order that " Parties are directed to make arguments, as to why case be not disposed of on the ground of delay itself. " By the same impugned order, the Tribunal has also rejected the petitioners' application for interim relief.

¶11

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the securitisation application. The Tribunal has wrongly rejected the application for condonation of delay against the settled principles of law that the Courts and Tribunals should adopt a liberal approach while deciding applications for condonation of delay.

¶12

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that after coming to a conclusion that a case for condonation of delay is not made out, it was not open for the Tribunal to consider the application for interim relief and reject the same on its merits. Further, the Tribunal has invited submissions as to why the case be not disposed of on the ground of delay, after rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

¶13

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this indicates a total lack of understanding of judicial procedure on the part of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 could not advance any submission in opposition to this

¶14

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶15

7. A copy of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been brought on record and a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay discloses that the petitioners have pleaded that the demand notice dated 22.09.2023 and the possession notice dated 20.06.2024 were not served upon the petitioners and they came to know about the same only after a notice under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was pasted on their premises. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners have filed the securitisation application.

¶16

8. The Bank had filed objections against the application for condonation of delay, a copy whereof is also available on record, wherein it has been stated that the respondent/ Bank took symbolic possession of the secured asset under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 20.06.2024 and the same was sent to the petitioners on 22.06.2024.

¶17

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the alleged affixation of notice was photographed, and a copy of the photo taken by a G.P.S. camera mentions the date and time of affixation as 21.05.2024 at 01:46 PM. He has also submitted that the alleged affixation of the notice dated 20.06.2024 made on 21.05.2024 is

¶18

apparently false. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient to make out a case for condonation of delay in filing the securitisation application.

¶19

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitisation Application No.131 of 2025 is unsustainable in law and the same is set aside.

¶20

11. As the application for interim relief had wrongly been rejected when the Tribunal was of the view that the application had been filed belatedly and it was not maintainable, rejection of the application for interim relief is also not sustainable in law.

¶21

12. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow for being decided application for interim relief as well as the securitisation application afresh, in accordance with law.

¶22

13. The Tribunal shall proceed with the matter expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶23

14. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Bank has issued a notice for taking possession of the property-in-dispute on 28.06.2025. In view of this fact situation, it is directed that the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall

¶24

decide the interim relief application of the petitioners prior to 28.06.2025.

¶25

15. The present writ petition stands disposed of .

¶26

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶27

Order Date :- 16.6.2025 cks/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Zaid Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mr. Mohd.Islam and Another v. Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Zaid Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mr. Mohd.Islam and Another v. Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. and 2 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

Meera Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Ramwati Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Niranjan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Prince @ Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Girja Shankar Constable Pno 112072041 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others