Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38782-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6538 of 2025 Petitioner :- Utkarsh Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Srivastava,Pranav Tivaree Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- "i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2025, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Mahanagar, First, in the Case/ Arbitration Application No.5169 of 2025, Hinduja Layland Finance Ltd. Vs. Utkarsh Shukla, as contained as Annexure no.8 to this writ petition, after summoning the original record, ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties particularly opposite party no.7 to handover the possession of vehicle of petitioner i.e. 'Tata Trailer Truck', bearing its Registration No. UP32-NN-9557 to the petitioner forthwith, iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no.7 to accept the loan amount from the petitioner in easy installments as per terms and conditions of agreement after rescheduling the same, which was executed between the parties at the time of taking loan amount, in the interest of law and justice." 3. Having challenged the order passed by District Judge, Jaipur which was passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition mentioned in the impugned order was not satisfied, that is, no arbitration proceedings were initiated within two months yet the opposite party no.7, which is a private Finance Company, seized the vehicle of the petitioner. If it is so then the remedy is not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but by lodging of an FIR or a complaint, as the case may be, or seeking a remedy before a Civil Court, as may be permissible. 4. Shri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents at this stage has stated that infact the order impugned has been passed by the District Judge, Jaipur. It does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court. Even otherwise an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable. Thus in either eventuality the petition is ill advised. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of. . (Om Prakash Shukla, J.)(Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench