Partly allowed

Mrs. Rekha Gupta and Another v. Addl. Distt. Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2025WRIC/8359/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ challenge to a DRT order rejecting interim relief in a Securitization Application, and to an ADM's Section 14 SARFAESI possession order authorizing a police Inspector to take possession. The Court held the direction contrary to Durga Travels, set aside the possession order, and remanded for a fresh order within one week.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.12.2024 under Section 14 SARFAESI Act set aside; matter remanded to ADM Finance and Revenue for fresh order within one week.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta and Another vs Addl. Distt… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 8359 of 2025

¶3

Mrs. Rekha Gupta And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Addl. Distt. Magistrate (Finance And Revenue) Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Khare, Suyash Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sharad Kumar Shukla Court No. - 17

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Abhishek Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashish Saxena, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶9

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitization Application No.535 of 2023 whereby the petitioners' application for interim relief bearing I.A. No.2193 of 2025 was rejected and the matter was fixed for 15.04.2026 for further hearing.

¶10

The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition on 27.08.2025 and on 28.08.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:-

¶11

"1. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that challenging the action of the respondent-Bank in proceedings against the petitioner under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, other grounds were raised, however no decision has been rendered in any of the said grounds as agitated before the DRT concerned. It is further argued that when the respondent-Bank tried to take possession in pursuance to an

¶12

WRIC No. 8359 of 2025

¶13

¶14

order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner approached the DRT by filing a fresh application. In the said application, apart from the earlier proceedings, the errors of the Section 14 orders were also challenged, however, by means of the impugned order, the DRT concerned has rejected the application for grant of interim relief without even considering any of the factual aspect as pleaded in the S.A. The order impugned has been passed solely on the consideration of the orders passed under Section 14. It is further argued that even the amendment application seeking to challenge Section 14 order has not been considered and the interim application has been rejected.

¶15

2. In view of above, the matter requires consideration.

¶16

3. The respondent-Bank is directed to file counter affidavit within three days.

¶17

4. The petitioner shall file rejoinder affidavit within one day thereafter.

¶18

5. List as fresh on 09.09.2025.

¶19

6. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken to disturb the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner shall also not create any third party right. "

¶20

The respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit after serving its copy upon the learned counsel for the petitioners on 02.09.2025. Further, the petitioners have not filed any rejoinder affidavit till date.

¶21

In these circumstances, the Court proceeds to decide the writ petition on the basis of material available on record and the Court does not find it appropriate to grant further time to the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit at this stage when they were initially granted a day's time to file a rejoinder affidavit but more than 100 days have elapsed since filing of the counter affidavit.

¶22

Assailing validity of the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejecting the interim relief application of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 10.12.2024 passed under the SARFAESI Act directs the Inspector In-charge to take possession of the property whereas in the case of M/s Durga Travels and 3 Ors. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal and 2 Ors. , the petition under Article 227

¶23

WRIC No. 8359 of 2025

¶24

¶25

No.1133 of 2023 decided on 12.03.2025, this Court has held that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act empowers the District Magistrate to take possession of the property concerned. Section 14(1)(A) of the Act further empowers the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to 'authorize any officer subordinate to him' to taken possession of the assets and thereafter, forward the assets to the secured creditor. Section 14 (A) empowers the District Magistrate to take possession himself or authorize any officer sub-ordinate to him for this purpose. The police officials are not subordinate to District Magistrate. A police officer delegated by the Additional Commissioner of Police is neither a functionality subordinate to the Additional District Magistrate nor he can be turned as an Officer of the Court.

¶26

While passing the interim order dated 28.08.2025, this Court has recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an amendment application filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge Section 14 order, has not been considered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶27

I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶28

The respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit specifically stating that this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was wrong as the amendment application had already been allowed by means of an order dated 03.07.2025, much before the aforesaid submission was advanced on 28.08.2025. This allegation levelled in the counter affidavit alleging concealment and misstatement of fact has not been refuted by the petitioner.

¶29

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has orally submitted that the order dated 03.07.2025 merely records that the learned counsel for the respondent-bank has sought time for filing objections against the amendment application and the Tribunal has fixed 05.01.2026 as the next date for hearing. The amendment application has not been allowed by the Tribunal and

¶30

WRIC No. 8359 of 2025

¶31

¶32

the aforesaid allegation of concealment of fact and misstatement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-bank is incorrect.

¶33

Be that as it may, it is apparent that the possession order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the ADM Finance and Revenue/Additional Collector authorizes Inspector of Police to take possession of the property, which direction is contrary to the law laid down in the case of Durga Travels (supra).

¶34

Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part .

¶35

The order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the ADM Finance and Revenue under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is set-aside . The matter is remanded to the ADM Finance and Revenue for passing a fresh order keeping in view the mandate of law laid down in case of Durga Travels (supra). The fresh be passed within one week from today and its copy will be served on the petitioners through electronic mode. The bank will provide e-mail ID and mobile number of the petitioners to the ADM Finance and Revenue and fresh possession notice shall be served upon the petitioners through e-mail and mobile phone.

¶36

December 15, 2025 -Amit K-

¶37

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶38

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

Mrs. Rekha Gupta and Another v. Addl. Distt. Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Rekha Gupta and Another v. Addl. Distt. Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Rukmani and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge J.D. Mohammadi Kheri and Another

Raj Narayan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchyati Raj Sectt. Lko. and 2OTHERS

M/S Ametek Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Anmol Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure Industrial Development and Another

Ravindra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Vinay Kumar @ Pawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.