Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 111170 (ALL)

NIKETA GUPTA v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,SHAHJAHANPUR AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/41482/2024 · 2025-02-05

Siddhartha Varma, Y K Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17656-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41482 of 2024 Petitioner :- Niketa Gupta Respondent :- District Magistrate,Shahjahanpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Pandey,Vinod Kumar Jaiswal,Vishwa Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Arora Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abdul Majeed, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has filed an application for impleadment of one M/s. Kishore Industries through its Proprietor Shyam Shukla wherein it has been stated that the applicant is the tenant of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had never taken the loan and that he had never signed any paper concerning the loan. 3. Sri Abdul Majeed, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner as also the tenant have an efficacious remedy of filing an application under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth called the "SARFAESI Act"). 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after taking into account the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never signed any paper viz.-a-viz. the loan etc., we are of the view that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. We are of the considered view that no interference is warranted in view of the fact that the Debts Recovery Tribunal itself is competent to look into all the disputed facts. Also, we are of the view that M/s. Kishore Industries which has filed an impleadment application here in the instant writ petition can also approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Also, the Impleadment Application No.2 of 2024 is rejected. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 GS (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad