Disposed

Jag Veer Singh v. Indian Overseas Bank Meerut U.P. Thru. Auth. Officer and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2026A227/1081/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of application by Debts Recovery Tribunal. Court held statutory remedy under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act available. Petition disposed of with liberty to file appeal before DRAT within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act before DRAT within two weeks.

Jag Veer Singh vs Indian Overseas Bank Meerut U.P… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1081 of 2026

Jag Veer Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Indian Overseas Bank Meerut U.P. Thru. Auth. Officer And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Kumar Singh, Abhishek Khare Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vinay Shankar

¶8

Court No. - 19

¶9

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Abhishek Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1-Bank and perused the material available on record.

¶11

In view of the proposed order being passed, notice to respondent No. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶12

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶13

"(a) Issue an order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A. No. 337 of 2025 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this petition.

¶14

(b) Issue an order or direction directing the respondent no. 1 not to take the physical possession of the property in question.

¶15

(c) Issue an order or direction directing the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow to decide the I.A. No. 995 of 2026 filed in S.A. No. 337 of 2025 afresh."

¶16

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of the order dated 19.02.2026, learned Tribunal in the most arbitrary manner rejected the application of the petitioner on the sole ground that the property has been sold and the auction purchaser

¶17

A227 No. 1081 of 2026

¶18

¶19

has become real owner of the property. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 17 of the "Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the 'Act of 2002'). It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is arbitrary as there is no specific findings with regard to the compliance shown by the respondent-bank. It is also asserted that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Tribunal at the time of rendering of the judgment.

¶20

Sri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank has vehemently opposed the writ petition by raising preliminary objection regarding the entertainability of the present petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy provided under Section 18 of the Act of 2002. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SBI Stressed Assets Recovery Branch Versus M/S G.S.M. Bricks and Tiles, in Special Appeal No. 48 of 2026 decided on 23.02.2026.

¶21

He submitted that even otherwise also, there is no such urgency in the matter that writ petition be entertained by circumventing the statutory remedy as provided under the Act of 2002. He very categorically stated that in any case, before taking the possession at least fifteen days prior notice will be given to the petitioner.

¶22

In view of what has been stated herein above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002. In case, such an appeal is filed within two weeks from today along with an application for interim relief, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders on the same shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶23

February 27, 2026 Arun

¶24

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶25

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

Jag Veer Singh v. Indian Overseas Bank Meerut U.P. Thru. Auth. Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jag Veer Singh v. Indian Overseas Bank Meerut U.P. Thru. Auth. Officer and Another

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

Similar cases

Smt. Anjali Singh vs Shailesh Singh

Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Secy. Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar Lko. vs Ramesh Kumar and Another

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Thru. Secy. vs M/S Maa Bhagwati Commerical Reality N Resorts LLP B-20/2 New Delhi

Sarvesh Gupta @ Sarvesh Kumar Gupta and Another vs Siya Ram and 2 Others

Rajendra Prasad Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. and 4 Others

Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchayatiraj Lko. and 5 Others