Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30203 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2978 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Dinesh Jain And Sons Thru. Proprietor Mr. Dinesh Jain And Another Respondent :- Indian Bank ,Lko. Thru. Its Authorized Officer Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Saksham Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Srivastava, the counsel for the respondent Bank. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the DRT, Lucknow, in pursuance to the remand made by this court in the Matter U/A 227 No.2024 of 2025 vide order dated 09.04.2025 whereby direction was given to the DRT, Lucnkow to decide the matter afresh. 3. The DRT noticed the earlier order passed in the matter on 20.02.2025 restraining the bank from confirming the auction. From the order, it is revealed that thereafter an application was filed by the Bank for vacation of the interim order mainly on the ground that on account of the earlier order, bank is unable to confirm the sale despite the property being auctioned vide sale notice dated 13.01.2025. It further records that earlier the DRT had restrained the bank from confirmation of sale vide order dated 20.02.2025 on the ground that the newspaper, in which the publication has been carried out is not widely circulated in the locality. It further records that in the said order, it was also prima-facie found that the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act were not properly served but the notices under section 13(4) of the said Act was properly served and there was no publication made in the widely circulated newspaper. 4. The DRT also recorded the submission that the notices under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were not served upon the applicant and the other notices were also served on fake addresses and further there was no publication in terms of the Rule 8(2) of the Security Enforcement Rules, 2002. The DRT thereafter recorded that Rule 9 is a complete code, however, it does not empower the DRT, after the sale, to restrain the bank from confirmation. It was further recorded that admittedly the sale has taken place and third party interest has been created and the only remedy is to decide the Securitization Application finally as was proposed in the impugned order, which has been set aside by the High Court. Ultimately, the application was disposed off with observation that the remedy, if any, will be available only after the final disposal of the case as provided under section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter permitted the Bank to confirm the sale. 5. The said reasoning recorded by the DRT is completely flawed. The DRT has failed to understand the mandate of Rule 9 of the Rules and has ignored to decide the specific submission that there was no compliance of publication as prescribed under Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. 6. Without dealing with any of the arguments, the order earlier granted was modified, which can not be termed as a proper exercise of power and is quashed. 7. It was informed, after filing of the writ petition, that sale certificate in pursuance to the liberty granted in the impugned order was taken out, however, the same was not served upon the auction purchaser and has now been withdrawn. 8. As the matter is being remanded to DRT for consideration, it is directed that all the pleadings will be open to the parties before the DRT, who shall pass fresh order after hearing the parties in accordance with law preferably within a period of three weeks from today without giving any adjournments to any of the parties. 9. Till the fresh decision, the bank is restrained from confirming the auction. 10. The writ petition stands disposed off. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench