Disposed¶19

Sonam Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 7 Others

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2025WRIC/11455/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ petition; Section 14 SARFAESI Act 2002 physical possession notice dated 13.11.2025 by Tehsildar, Nawabganj, Barabanki (Letter No. 1972/SARFAESI/2025-2026); M/s Hinduja Housing Finance Limited v. Akash Sharma; Section 17(1) application already pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal; writ disposed with liberty to seek expeditious DRT hearing; DRT directed to decide preferably within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make an application for expeditious hearing before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within a week; direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, upon such application, to hear the pending Section 17(1) matter expeditiously, preferably within three months. ¶19

Sonam Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the physical possession notice dated 13.11.2025 issued under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 could be challenged under Article 226 when a Section 17(1) application is already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to make an application for expeditious hearing before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, where the Section 17(1) application is already pending.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In case any such application is made within a week, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to hear the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 11455 of 2025, Sonam Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 7 Others, decided 25.11.2025 (Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ.). Writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash a physical possession notice dated 13.11.2025 (Letter No. 1972/SARFAESI/2025-2026) issued by opposite party no.4, the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Nawabganj, District-Barabanki, in Case No. 2303/2024 (M/s Hinduja Housing Finance Limited v. Akash Sharma and others) under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and mandamus restraining dispossession from House No. D.B. 2496, part of Khasra No. 211 ka Minjuma, Village-Paishar, District-Barabanki. Observing that an application under Section 17(1) of the said Act was already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the possession notice but disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to apply for expeditious hearing before the DRT; if such application is made within a week, the DRT is directed to hear the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11455 of 2025

Sonam Vishwakarma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance And 7 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Bharti, Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶11

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has prayed for the following substantial reliefs:-

¶12

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, thereby quashing the impugned Notice dated 13.11.2025 given by the opposite party no.4 Tehsildar, Tehsil-Nawabganj, District-Barabanki physical possession notice or letter no.1972/SARFAESI/2025-2026 in regarding Case No.2303/2024 (Computerized Case No.D202404120002303) "M/s Hinduja Housing Finance Limited Versus Akash Sharma and others Under Section 14 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 contained in Annexure no.1 to this writ petition and further be pleased to direct the opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the House No. D.B. 2496 being part of Khasra No.211 ka Minjuma Village-Paishar (Bahar Seema), WardDasharabagh, Pargana and Tehsil-Nawabganj, DistrictBarabanki to this writ petition interest of justice.

¶13

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Opposite Parties not to dispossess the petitioner and also not to take the physical possession of the House in question forcefully, during pendency of the instant writ petition interest of justice.

¶14

iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus

¶15

WRIC No. 11455 of 2025

¶16

¶17

thereby commanding and directing the Opposite Parties not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the House No.D.B.2496 being part of Khasra No.211 Ka Minjuma Village-Paishar (Bahar Seema), Ward-Dasharabagh, Pargana and Tehsil-Nawabganj, District-Barabanki interest of justice."

¶18

It appears that an application under Section 17(1) of Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶19

Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application for expeditious hearing before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and in case any such application is made within a week, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to hear the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from date.

¶20

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶21

November 25, 2025 akhilesh/-

¶22

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

Sonam Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonam Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 7 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 Akhtar Garments Material Proprietor Najmeen Akhtar vs Branch Manager Union Bank of India/Andhra Bank Unity College Branch Lko. and Another

Smt. Chandrawati Devi and 30 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Raj Bahadur and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Sonam Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 7 Others

Meetu Jaiswal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Director General Ins. Finance External Aided Lko and Another

Suresh Datt Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others