Rajendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rajendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only: opposite party No. 2 to consider the petitioners' offer of Rs. 2.27 crores (letter dated 12.2.2025) without prejudice to its rights; any action taken in pursuance of the auction held to abide by the Court's further orders; pleadings within 6 weeks and matter to be listed thereafter. Final disposal deferred.

Issue for consideration

Whether the auction of the mortgaged property held on 26.2.2025, while the petitioners' One Time Settlement proposal/offer was pending, was lawful, and whether opposite party No. 2 ought to consider the petitioners' offer dated 12.2.2025 (Rs. 2.27 crores).

Court's answer

Opposite party No. 2 is directed to consider the petitioners' offer contained in the letter dated 12.2.2025 (Rs. 2.27 crores) without prejudice to its rights in these proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, any action taken in pursuance of the auction held shall abide by the further orders of the Court.

Key takeaways

Pleadings are to be exchanged within six weeks and the matter is to be listed thereafter.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order in WRIT - C No. 1980 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, order dated 28.2.2025, Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.). Borrower-petitioners challenged an auction of their mortgaged property held on 26.2.2025 by opposite party No. 2 (their term-loan and working-capital lender) while a One Time Settlement proposal was allegedly pending. The lender contended the petitioners were asked by letter dated 24.1.2025 to submit a better offer under the O.T.S. Scheme and failed to do so; the petitioners claimed receipt of that letter only on 21.2.2025 and relied on their earlier offer of Rs. 2.27 crores dated 12.2.2025, against a highest auction bid of Rs. 3.16 crores, with a further auction scheduled for 7.3.2025. The Court directed opposite party No. 2 to consider the petitioners' offer without prejudice to its rights, directed exchange of pleadings within six weeks, and ordered that any action taken in pursuance of the auction held shall abide by the Court's further orders.

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1980 of 2025

Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Chandra,Adarsh Pratap Singh,Devesh Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

Supplementary-affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.

Heard.

The petitioners appear to have taken some term loan and working capital term loan from the opp. party No. 2, which they were not able to repay, consequently a demand was raised. Same could also not be met.

It is said that One Time Settlement (O.T.S.) proposal was pending consideration. According to the petitioners, without considering the same auction of the mortgaged property was fixed on 26.2.2025 and the auction was held, illegally, however, the counsel for the opp. party No. 2 says that the petitioners were asked by the letter dated 24.1.2025 to submit better offer under the O.T.S. Scheme, but they did not do so, therefore, the auction was fixed on 26.2.2025 and was held.

The petitioners’ counsel, on the other hand, says that the the petitioners received the letter dated 24.1.2025 only on 21.2.2025. Prior to it, they had submitted an offer on 12.2.2025, which has not been taken into consideration.

Counsel for the opp. party No. 2 says that the highest bid in the auction held on 26.2.2025 is 3.16 crores, however, in order to fetch a better price another auction of the same property is scheduled to place on 7.3.2025.

Submission is that once an auction has been held and a bid has

come, the opp. party No. 2 cannot accept any amount less than the highest bid in the auction.

The petitioners’ counsel, on the other hand, reiterates that letter dated 24.1.2025 not having been received by the petitioners, on account of which they could not submit the better offer, however. He placed reliance on the earlier letter 12.2.2025, which contains an offer dated 2.27 Crores, which is less than the bid amount.

Let the said offer be considered by the opp. party No. 2 without prejudice to their rights in these proceedings.

Pleadings be exchanged within 6 weeks.

List thereafter.

Any action taken in pursuance to the auction held shall abide by the further orders.

( Om Prakash Shukla, J. ) ( Rajan Roy, J. )

Order Date :- 28.2.2025 A.Nigam

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