Dismissed¶9

M/S Ram Kumar Sunil Kumar Thru. Proprietor Ram Kumar and Another v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Financial Service, New Delhi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025A227/740/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition against DRT Lucknow order dated 21.01.2025 (S.A. No.235 of 2024) refusing interim relief restraining bank auction; over Rs.40 lac due, auction thrice postponed then completed with part deposit by auction purchaser; writ petition dismissed (19.2.2025, Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench); petitioner left free to apply before DRT for expeditious consideration.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed and no restraint on the auction was granted. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the DRT regarding further steps, to be considered expeditiously (preferably within one week of production of a certified copy of this order). ¶9

M/S Ram Kumar Sunil Kumar Thru. Proprietor Ram… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, should interfere with the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the DRT, Lucknow declining to restrain the respondent-Bank from taking steps for auction.

¶6

Court's answer

In view of the auction having already been taken and part of the amount having been deposited by the auction purchaser, the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No.235 of 2024 cannot be interfered with, and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶9

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to challenge further steps before the DRT by moving an appropriate application, and may take all legal steps available to him before the DRT.obiter¶10
If the petitioner files such an application before the DRT, it shall be considered in accordance with law with all expedition, preferably within one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), Matters Under Article 227 No. 740 of 2025, decided 19.2.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:10705). Petition by M/S Ram Kumar Sunil Kumar challenging the order dated 21.01.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No.235 of 2024, by which its application restraining the respondent-Bank from taking steps for auction was not entertained; the DRT had recorded more than Rs.40 lac as due, noted a third postponement of the auction, and declined interim relief viewing the petitioner as trying to kill time. Counsel for the Bank informed the Court that the auction had already been held and part of the amount deposited by the auction purchaser. Held: the DRT order cannot be interfered with; the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner remains at liberty to challenge further steps before the DRT by an appropriate application, which the Tribunal shall consider in accordance with law with expedition, preferably within one week of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10705

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 740 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Ram Kumar Sunil Kumar Thru. Proprietor Ram Kumar And Another Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Financial Service, New Delhi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivansh Shukla,Abhishek Khare Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anurag Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

1 . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Atul Kumar Singh, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.1 and Sri Alok Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank. The Vakalatnamna is taken on record.

¶6

2 . The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 21.01.2025 whereby an application was moved restraining the respondent-Bank for taking steps for auction.

¶7

3 . The DRT, Lucknow recorded that more than Rs.40/- lac is due and the auction was postponed for the third time. The DRT was of the view that as the petitioner was trying to kill time, the interim relief could not be granted.

¶8

4 . It is informed by the Counsel for the respondent-Bank that the auction has already been taken and part of the amount has already been deposited by the auction purchaser.

¶9

5 . In view thereof, the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No.235 of 2024 cannot be interfered with. The writ petition is dismissed .

¶10

6 . The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge further steps, which have been before the DRT, by moving an appropriate application. He would also be at liberty to take all legal steps, which would be available to him before the DRT.

¶11

7 . In case, the application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law with all expedition preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.2.2025

¶13

akverma

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Ram Kumar Sunil Kumar Thru. Proprietor Ram Kumar and Another v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Financial Service, New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ram Kumar Sunil Kumar Thru. Proprietor Ram Kumar and Another v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Financial Service, New Delhi 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

M/S Aditya Infratech Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Sushil Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Bamdev Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Sitapur and 7 Others

Smt. Ashok Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law, Lko. and 3 Others

Lalit Kumar S/O Raja Ram Vs District Judge Raebareli and Ors.

Nand Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Abdul Hakeem @ Abdul Hakeem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 7 Others