Disposed¶14

Harsh Bhati v. Jeetu and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026A227/5125/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Article 227; expeditious disposal of temporary injunction application; ex-parte ad-interim injunction declined; SARFAESI Act 2002 auction purchaser; Section 14 SARFAESI possession delivered to Bank; sale deed December 2025; part of order declining ad-interim injunction unchallenged; time sought to file amendment application; connected with Matter U/A 277 No.5108 of 2026; listed 27.04.2026 as fresh before appropriate Bench; single judge Kshitij Shailendra, J.; no monetary reliefs.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file amendment application; the Court directed the matter to be connected with Matter U/A 277 No.5108 of 2026 and to be put up on 27.04.2026 as fresh before appropriate Bench. The petition was not finally decided. ¶14

Harsh Bhati vs Jeetu and 2 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5125 of 2026

Harsh Bhati

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Jeetu And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek Gupta, Chandra Bhan Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶9

Prayer for expeditious disposal of application seeking temporary injunction has been made.

¶10

A perusal of record indicates that suit has been instituted only on 06.04.2026.

¶11

Learned counsel has advanced arguments on merits of his injunction application by contending that he is an auction purchaser after the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act') have been finalized and not only possession of the property was delivered to the Bank under Section 14 of the Act but also sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in December, 2025 and possession was delivered to petitioner, therefore, declining to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction was not justified.

¶12