Dismissed¶¶22

Arti Mehrotra and Another v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Financial Service Thru. Secy. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2025WRIC/10169/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arti Mehrotra v. Union of India; Writ C 10169 of 2025 dismissed infructuous; SARFAESI Act 2002 Section 14 interim possession order dated 29.01.2025 valid nine months only, lapsed 28.09.2025; Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Ghaziabad; AU Small Finance Bank; Writ C 29208/2025 Division Bench order 03.09.2025; Commissioner of Police Ghaziabad compliance eight weeks; Subhash Vidyarthi Judge; Lucknow Bench; decision 30 October 2025.

What did the court decide?

This Court dismissed the writ petition in terms of petitioner counsel's submission that, with the nine-month validity of the interim possession order dated 29.01.2025 elapsed on 28.09.2025, nothing survived to be adjudicated and the matter had become infructuous. ¶¶22

Arti Mehrotra and Another Vs Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Financial Service Thru. Secy. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10169 of 2025

¶3

Arti Mehrotra And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Financial Service Thru. Secy. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jyoti Rajpoot, Gaurav Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 17

¶10

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶11

Ms. Jyoti Rajpoot, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India jointly state that the interim possession order dated 29.01.2025 specifically mention that the order would remain operative for nine months only and after the aforesaid period the order will automatically become ineffective. Therefore, the order has become ineffective upon expiry of the period of nine months on 28.09.2025 and the matter has become infructuous.

¶12

The learned counsel for opposite party no. 3-Authorized Officer, AU Small Finance Bank Limited states that the bank has filed Writ C No. 29208/2025, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order on 03.09.2025:-

¶13

"1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶14

2. In the present case, order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated January 29, 2025 was passed by the Additional

¶15

WRIC No. 10169 of 2025

¶16

¶17

District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad for granting possession to the petitioner.

¶18

3. In light of the same, the Commissioner of Police Ghaziabad, being the respondent No.3 herein, is directed to act in accordance with law and comply with the order passed under Section 14 of the Act within a period of eight weeks from date, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶19

4. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of."

¶20

He has submitted that the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad is under a legal obligation to comply with the aforesaid order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Division Bench in Writ C No. 29208 of 2025.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as a period of nine months granted in the interim possession order dated 29.01.2025 stands elapsed, nothing survives to be adjudicated in this writ petition.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

October 30, 2025

¶24

Pradeep/-

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶26

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

Arti Mehrotra and Another v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Financial Service Thru. Secy. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti Mehrotra and Another v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Financial Service Thru. Secy. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Authorized Signatory Sudeep Vidyarth Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infra. and Industrial Development Lko. and Another

The Production Manager, M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Jagdishpur, Dist. Sultanpur and Another Vs Sri Ramesh Chandra Mishra

Focus Computeeh Pvt. Thru . Authroised Signatoy Niteesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Deptt. Infrastr. and Industr. Develo. Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

C/M Shri Tirupati Siksha Prasar Samiti Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Susheel Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Neeraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Arti Mehrotra and Another vs Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Financial Service Thru. Secy. and 2 Others