Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38023 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3954 of 2025 Petitioner :- Farah Yusuf And 4 Others Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar,Devesh Srivastava,Satish Gulati,Sudeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/Bank. 2. Present petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution against an order dated 29.03.2025 passed in S.A. No.752 of 2022. 3. Neat submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that S.A. No.752 of 2022 was preferred by the petitioner agitating various grounds as are evident from the application which is on record as Annexure - 2. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the matter was heard by the DRT concerned, none of the points as were agitated in the S.A. were considered in the order impugned. He further draws my attention to the recording in the order itself that written arguments have been filed wherein following irregularities have been pointed out: "A - Different dates of NPA have been pleaded in different demand notices. B - In order u/s 14 of the Act, the respondent-bank concealed the material fact that the order has been obtained against only a single applicant which is only of Rs. 40.00 lacs. It is argued that the order was obtained by committing fraud. Needless to say that an order passed by The District Magistrate, by practicing fraud can not be examined by this tribunal. C - Partnership firm stands dissolved after death of one of the partners." 5. He argues that although in the written argument, various pleas were raised, only three irregularities were noticed, as extracted above, however, while deciding the S.A. finally, even the said three points have not been considered. 6. With regard to Point No.A as recorded and extracted above, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in Para 4, the argument of respondent/bank was noticed and while dealing with the said argument, it was merely recorded that the notice is merely a forewarning and it cannot be argued that the petitioner was caught unaware. 7. The said observation, based upon the arguments advanced, is clearly misreading of the manner in which Rule 8(2) and the other provisions have been interpreted to be mandatory by the Supreme Court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution that Section 18 of SARFAESI Act prescribes for a remedy of appeal before DRAT and as such, the petitioner ought to have availed such alternative remedy instead of approaching under Art. 227 of Constitution. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the manner in which the decision has been taken is clearly violative of Art. 14 of Constitution, and relies upon the judgments in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai; (1998) 8 SCC 1 as well as in the case of M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.7472 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20428 of 2007 decided on 08.09.2010 to argue that the manner in which the decision has been rendered clearly comes within the exception carved out by the Supreme Court. 10. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the manner in which the DRT has decided the S.A. is at least unknown to any decision making process in Indian jurisprudence. The DRT has failed to consider anything that was argued or agitated in the S.A. and has also failed to consider the Point A as determined by the DRT itself. The said manner of decision making itself renders the entire decision violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, as such, on the said simple ground, the objection of respondent/Bank that alternative remedy is available deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 11. In view thereof, the order impugned dated 29.03.2025 is set aside as being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 12. The matter is remanded to the DRT concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 13. The parties shall maintain the position with regard to the possession as were existing prior to 29.03.2025. 14. The parties would be at liberty to take such steps to protect their interest, as may be advised under law. 15. Present petition stands allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench