Ram Singh Pal and Another Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ram Singh Pal and Another Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned DRT order dated 22.05.2025 rejecting the delay condonation application set aside; matter remanded to the DRT, Lucknow to decide S.A. No. 8 of 2024 on its merits in accordance with law with all expedition.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 being maintainable against the DRT's rejection of the delay condonation application (alternate remedy). +1 more

Court's answer

Although an appeal against the impugned order is maintainable, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised because the order was passed on factually incorrect observations regarding service of notice and is bereft of any reasoning; the case falls within the exceptions carved out in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned DRT order relating to the delay condonation application appears to be harsh, cannot be sustained, and is set aside.

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded to the DRT, Lucknow to decide S.A. No. 8 of 2024 on its merit in accordance with law with all expedition.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 7 - MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3822 of 2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:37330), decided on 2.7.2025 by Pankaj Bhatia, J. Petitioners Ram Singh Pal and another challenged the order dated 22.05.2025 of the DRT rejecting their delay condonation application concerning steps under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, taken in relation to S.A. No. 08 of 2024. The DRT had relied on the respondent bank's submission that the section 13(4) notice stood served on 05.12.2022 and that the petitioner had appeared in the section 14 proceedings, observing that improperly explained delay is liable to be dismissed and that the petitioner had played 'hide and seek' in concealing facts. Finding the order factually incorrect on service of notice and bereft of any reasoning, and applying the exceptions carved out in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai (1998 (8) SCC 1), the Court exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 despite an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act being maintainable; the impugned order was set aside as harsh and the matter was remanded to the DRT, Lucknow to decide S.A. No. 8 of 2024 on merits with expedition. The writ petition was allowed. (PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, 2024 INSC 297, was cited by the bank's counsel on the availability of the section 18 appeal.)

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37330

Court No. - 7

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3822 of 2025

Petitioner :- Ram Singh Pal And Another Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Presiding Officer Hanuman Setu Mandir Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishwar Chandra Pandey, Gaurav Singh, Hari Kant,Mohd. Faiz,Shatrughan Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- Deepak Singh,Apporv Pal,C.S.C.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Singh who appears for the respondent no.2.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the DRT whereby, the delay condonation application was rejected.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent bank had taken steps by issuing notices, however, the said notices were never served upon the petitioner and the petitioner came to know of the notices and the steps being taken by the respondents only when an order was passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and after the decision on the said application under section 14 of the Act, the SA was preferred being S.A. No.08 of 2024 before the DRT. It is further argued that a delay condonation application was also filed in respect of the action taken by the respondents under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, the DRT by the impugned order has rejected the delay condonation application mainly observing that as per the submission of the respondent bank before the DRT, the notice under section 13(4) of the Act was served upon the petitioner on 05.12.2022 and also that he appeared before the DRT in the proceedings under section 14 of the Act.

The DRT noticing the said contention of the respondent bank held that if the delay is not properly explained, the same is liable to be dismissed. The order further observes that the petitioner has played hide and seek in concealing of facts.

The counsel for the petitioner argues that at no point of time, was any document given before the DRT showing that notice was served and even the application filed before the ADM under section 14 was never served upon the petitioner.

The counsel for the respondent bank, draws my attention to

the order to argue that the petitioner had put in appearance in the proceedings under section 14, however, the application was not specifically served upon the petitioner.

The counsel for the respondent bank states that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 Act and places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others decided on 10.04.2024; 2024 INSC 297 .

In the present case, although, an appeal is maintainable against the said order, however, the fact remains that the order impugned has been passed by making factually incorrect observations with regard to service of notice and as, the order is bereft of any reasoning, thus, considering the law as explained in the case of 1998 (8) SCC 1 Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and others, the case falls under the exceptions as carved out in the said case for exercising of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view thereof, the order impugned of the DRT relating to delay condonation application appears to be harsh and as such, the same cannot be sustained and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the DRT, Lucknow to decide the SA No.8 of 2024 on its merit in accordance with law with all expedition.

The writ petition stands allowed.

Order Date :- 2.7.2025 VNP/-

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench