Anurag Shukla vs Commercial Court Lko. and 4 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ojjasvini (Senior Manager of the respondent no.5-bank) who has appeared in person in furtherance of the order dated 03.11.2025 and Sri Apoorv Dev learned counsel for the Bank.

¶12

Sri Vikram Soni learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State respondent has provided a copy of the written instructions under the signatures of the S.H.O, P.S.-Madayganj, Lucknow.

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for the Commercial Court no.1, Lucknow to decide his application for interim relief filed in Misc. Case no.211 of 2025 (Anurag Shukla vs Shivalik Finance Bank ltd and Ors).

¶14

Another prayer has been made that appropriate directions be issued for restraining the respondents from taking forcible possession of the property in question bearing House no.538/115, Deen Dayal Nagar Khadra, Lucknow till the said application for interim relief is decided by the Commercial Court.

¶15

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had availed a financial assistance from the respondent no.5 bank. It is urged that in furtherance thereof, the bank had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Simultaneously, they also instituted proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is pointed out that in terms of an application moved by the respondent bank under Section 17 of the

¶16

A227 No. 6401 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an order was passed by the Arbitrator dated 14.08.2024 in terms whereof, proceedings have been initiated to take over the possession of the house in question.

¶19

The contention is that both the proceedings i.e under the SARFAESI Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot proceed simultaneously. It is also urged that in case, if the respondent bank pursues its remedy under the Act of 1996 then any order passed by the Arbitrator at vest can be executed in terms of the provisions as applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but nevertheless, police authorities cannot be directed to intervene. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Court had required learned Standing counsel to seek instructions including Sri Dev learned counsel for the Bank.

¶20

As far as the State counsel is concerned, it has been informed that a letter was received by them from the respondent no.5-bank referring to an order passed by the Arbitrator however, it is clearly stated by the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel that on the application of the bank, the police authorities have not visited the property in question nor have made any attempt forcibly to forcibly take the possession of the occupant from the house in question.

¶21

The Manger for the respondent no.5-Bank has urged that merely a notice under Section (13)2 of the SARFAESI Act was issued however, no further proceedings were taken forward. It is urged that since the agreement entered by the Bank with the petitioner included an arbitration clause, accordingly, the arbitral proceedings were initiated but it could not be denied by the Manager present in person that in furtherance of an order passed by the Arbitrator, the application was sent to the police authorities for seeking assistance.

¶22

Apparently, the Arbitrator under the Act, 1996 is not vested with the powers in getting the order executed either through the police authorities or by directing some third parties. Even an order which is capable of execution can only be done in accordance with law as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶23

A specific query was put to the Manager of the Bank who is present in person as to whether any execution proceedings has been initiated relating to an order passed under Section 17 of the Act, 1996, to which, it was answered

¶24

A227 No. 6401 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

in negative.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid as well as request made by the bank, four weeks time is granted as prayed by the learned counsel for the bank to file response with an advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner who if may so choose may file his response within ten days, thereafter.

¶28

12. List on 05.01.2026.

¶29

Till the next date of listing, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner. However, it is provided that in case, if the bank adopts any legal recourse by filing an execution, the same shall be contested on its own merit.

¶30

It is made clear that the Court has not stayed any proceedings before any Court or Arbitrator.

¶31

November 7, 2025 Harshita

¶32

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶33

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

Anurag Shukla v. Commercial Court Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Anurag Shukla v. Commercial Court Lko. and 4 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

Samraj Vs Central Bureau of Investigation /Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.

Haseeb Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Sarfaraz Ali Jafri Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Rinie Banerjee (Ppo No. 304) vs Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director of Education (Madhyamik) Allahabad PIN-211002

Smt. Shivani Shukla vs Sri Ashutosh Pandey, Tehsildar-Taraganj Distt. Gonda

Satya Prakash Mishra and 7 Others vs Sri Amrit Abhijat Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Deve. Lko and Another