Sunita Nishad and Another Vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26621-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 164 of 2025

Appellant :- Sunita Nishad And Another Respondent :- Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sridhar Awasthi,Sumit Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava,Shailendra Singh Rajawat

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Bank of Baroda and Shri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶7

The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Bank of Baroda has already been dealt with in our order passed on 06.05.2025. The matter was fixed for today for hearing on the appeal. This Court while dealing with the preliminary objection had further directed the Bank to clarify the position as to whether auction notice issued on 18.11.2017 fixing the date for sale on 11.12.2017 was the subsequent notice or the same had come to be issued by way of the first notice.

¶8

Today, when the matter was taken up before this Court, the only arguments put forth by Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants is that in case the auction notice dated 18.11.2017 was the subsequent notice, then there is no other ground for the appellants to assail the proceedings of auction and in that case the entire grievance is confined against the cost which has exorbitantly been imposed by the Writ Court

¶9

while deciding the writ petition.We straightaway reiterated the question regarding the subsequent auction notice dated 18.11.2017, to which, learned counsel for the Bank has offered a satisfactory reply.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the Bank has placed before us the first auction notice issued on 16.02.2017 wherein the date of auction was fixed as 22.03.2017. The said auction notice was duly published in two Newspapers i.e. Dainik Jagran, Hindi edition, Lucknow and Times of India in English edition, Lucknow. The publication of the notice in the respective newspapers was also placed before us. The auction notice as well as publication thereof is kept on record. The said notice was also pasted at a conspicuous place on the house sought to be auctioned. A copy of the auction notice has been handed over to the learned counsel for the appellants too.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants in all fairness has conceded that the procedure adopted by the Bank was adhered to meticulously and the proceedings carried out by the Bank, therefore, do not stand vitiated on the touchstone of not following the procedure. The appellants before us have not chosen to advance any further arguments on the merits of the case which, in our humble consideration, has been dealt with by the Writ Court elaborately.

¶12

Shri Seth, learned counsel for the appellants has lastly argued that the cost imposed by the Writ Court to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) is exorbitant for the reason that the appellants at best can be said to have availed the statutory remedies available under law and for undertaking such an exercise permissible in the eyes of law, any delay which may have occurred is the delay in concluding the legal proceedings. The submission put forth by the learned

¶13

counsel for the appellants is attractive, which when tested in the light of the observations made by the Writ Court in paragraph 45 is bound to fail, once the Court would notice that some observations have been made by the Writ Court on the aspect of serious misrepresentation on the part of the appellants. That apart, the delay in delivery of possession to the auction purchaser has also been one of the considerations for imposition of the cost.

¶14

Be that as it may, taking a lenient view, we restrict the cost imposed by the Writ Court to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) which shall be realized in terms of the paragraphs 58 and 59 of the impugned judgment. The entire amount so recovered shall be released in favour of the auction purchaser.

¶15

The appellants, who are present in person, have undertaken to hand over the peaceful possession of the property in question within a period of six weeks from today. In the event of default, the cost imposed by the Writ Court shall revive and shall be realized in the same manner in which it has been ordered.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the special appeal is disposed of .

¶17

.

¶18

[Rajeev Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 akhilesh/-

¶20

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

Sunita Nishad and Another v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Nishad and Another v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Inspector, Civil Police, Sunil Dutt Vs U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. and Others

Inspector, Civil Police, Sunil Dutt vs U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Anubhag 1 Lko. vs Santosh Kumar

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Anubhag 1 Lko. vs Santosh Kumar

Sunita Nishad and Another vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 3 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others vs Amit Kumar and 2 Others