Disposed¶20

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. District Magistrate , Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2025WRIC/5864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Section 14 possession; District Magistrate Ayodhya; auction purchaser; writ mandamus for physical possession; police assistance; affidavit of compliance; Debt Recovery Tribunal order dated 24.05.2024; 15 days' notice; WRIT-C 5864 of 2024; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Shekhar B. Saraf; Prashant Kumar; October 7, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the District Magistrate, Ayodhya and the Bank to notify and take physical possession pursuant to the Section 14 SARFAESI order, with liberty to seek police-station assistance, and to file an affidavit of compliance by the next date; matter listed for further hearing on November 13, 2025. ¶20

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari vs District Magistrate , Ayodhya… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 5864 of 2024

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

District Magistrate , Ayodhya And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vinay Shankar

¶9

Court No. - 3

¶10

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶12

Section 14 order under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been passed by the District Magistrate in the year 2023. Inspite of the same, till date the possession has not been given to the auction purchaser being the petitioner herein.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf the Bank submits that the Debt Recovery Tribunal had passed an order dated 24th May, 2024. The relevant part of which is delineated below:-

¶14

"Ld. Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted respondent bank/civil authority will not take the physical possession of the property in question on 27.05.2025. Further submitted that whenever the respondent bank/civil authority will go to take physical possession of the property, they shall serve a notice of 15 days to the S. Applicant and seeks time for filing reply."

¶15

He further submits that even though several notices have been given to the borrowers and to the District Magistrate with regard to the possession, the District Magistrate had not acted on the same till date and the possession has not been taken and has not been given to the Bank. In light of the same, they are unable to hand over the possession to the auction purchaser being the petitioner herein.

¶16

WRIC No. 5864 of 2024

¶17

¶18

In light of the submissions made, we direct the District Magistrate and the Bank to give notice of physical possession to be taken of the property in question and the District Magistrate is directed to take possession immediately after the notice period is over. He shall be at liberty to take assistance of the police station concerned for implementing the Section 14 order passed.

¶19

The District Magistrate and the Bank authorities shall file an affidavit of compliance by the next date.

¶20

List this matter on November 13, 2025.

¶21

(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶22

October 7, 2025 Ashutosh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. District Magistrate , Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. District Magistrate , Ayodhya and 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

Dr. Biswas Ayurveda International Pvt.Ltd. Thru. Auth. Representative Mr.Vikas Tripathi and Another vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Ayush , New Delhi and Others

Rajeev Narayan Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Ajeej Ahmad and 25 Others vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Railway New Delhi and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D., Lko. and Others

M/S Perfect Stamping Pvt. Ltd. Gujraat Thru. General Manager, Pillai Shrinath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Vocational Education and Skill Development, Lko. and Ors.

Shivram Singh vs U.P. Information Commission Thru. Registrar and 4 Others