Pawan Gupta Vs U.O.I. Ministry of Finance New… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Pawan Gupta Vs U.O.I. Ministry of Finance New… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed with no interference; petitioner left free to take steps as advised under law, including moving the respondent-Bank for return of the non-hypothected goods listed in the handed-over inventory (to be returned within one week of such application, as assured by the respondent) and to prefer an appeal in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 21.08.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No. 599 of 2024 calls for interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the order passed by the D.R.T., no interference is called for in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is entitled to take such steps as may be advised under law and to move an application before the respondent-Bank for return of the goods covered by the handed-over inventory which were not hypothecated; such goods shall be returned to the petitioner on moving an appropriate application.

Key takeaways

The respondent assured that the goods shall be returned within a period of one week after the petitioner moves an appropriate application before the respondent-Bank.ratio¶22
The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal, if so advised, in accordance with law.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 21.08.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No. 599 of 2024, whereby the D.R.T. disposed of the petitioner's applications for early hearing, amendment, and restraint on the proposed e-auction dated 22.08.2025, recording that physical possession of the property had already been taken by the respondent-Bank and that any e-auction would be subject to the final outcome of the S.A. The petitioner's movable assets were sold in auction, and it was alleged that goods belonging to him, not part of the hypothecated property, were also sold without authority of law. Counsel for the Bank handed over the inventory list prepared at the time of taking possession, stating that only hypothecated assets were sold. Held: considering the nature of the D.R.T.'s order, no interference was called for; petition dismissed. However, the petitioner was held entitled to apply to the Bank for return of the goods covered by the inventory which were not hypothecated, the respondent assuring return within one week of such application, with liberty to prefer an appeal in accordance with law.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 8921 of 2025

Pawan Gupta

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.O.I. Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek	Khare,	Saumya
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I.,	Anurag	Srivastava, C.S.C.

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Heard Shri Abhishek Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank and perused the material available on record.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No. 599 of 2024 on the fact as emerges are that the petitioner had filed three applications before the D.R.T., Lucknow, one being for early hearing, the other being an amendment application and third being an application for restraining the Bank from putting the property on e-auction on 22.08.2025. The D.R.T. disposed of the said application by recording that the physical possession of the property has already been taken by the respondent-Bank. It further observed that any e-auction by the bank shall be subject to final outcome of the S.A.

It is informed at the bar that the movable assets of the petitioner was sold in pursuance to auction. It is further alleged that the 'goods' which belongs to the petitioner and were not part of the hypothecated property have also been sold out without any authority of law.

Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondent- Bank, has handed over the list of inventory prepared at the time of taking the possession in selling of the movable assets hypothecated to the bank. The said list is taken on record. He states that only the hypothecated assets have been sold and the possession thereof has been delivered.

Considering the nature of the order passed, no interference is called for in

WRIC No. 8921 of 2025

2

exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

The petitioner, however, would be entitled to take such steps as may be advised under law. He would also be entitled to move an application before the respondent-Bank for return of the goods for which, the inventory has been handed over by the respondent-bank and which have not hypothecated, which shall be returned to the petitioner on moving an appropriate application.

The petitioner would also be at liberty to prefer an appeal, if so advised, in accordance with law.

The respondent assures that the goods shall be returned within a period of one week after moving an appropriate application by the petitioner before the respondent-Bank.

September 11, 2025 Praveen

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

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