SHAHID AHMAD AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LKO. AND 4 OTHERS
WRIC/8394/2025 · 2025-09-01
Brij Raj Singh, Sangeeta Chandra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 160048 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 160048 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8394 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the State-respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and Shri Sanjeev Singh who appears on behalf of the Opposite party no.3-ICICI Bank.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following prayers:-
"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. Parties concerned to take the actual loan amount in easy instalment from petitioner after providing the actual statement of loan account and not adopt any coercive measures against the petitioner for realizing the loan amount in the interest of justice. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. Parties concerned to take the necessary action regarding grievances of the petitioner raised in the application contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition in the interest of justice. iii. Issue any other order or direction which is deemed just, fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Durgendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sanjeev Singh Shahid Ahmad And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. District Collector/District Magistrate Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
iv. Allow the writ petition with costs."
3. The counsel for the Bank has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition against the possession Notice issued by the Additional City Magistrate (Fourth), Lucknow, in pursuance of order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Case No.3435 of 2024.
4. This petition is dismissed as not maintainable in view of the law settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, leaving it open for the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). September 1, 2025 N.PAL WRIC No. 8394 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench