SHREE SAI NATH TRADERS AND SUPPLIERS THRU. PROPRIETOR RAM LAKHAN AND ANOTHER v. PUNAJB NATIONAL BANK THRU. CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, R.D.A. COMPLEX BRANCH RAEBARELI
WRIC/8743/2025 · 2025-09-08
Brij Raj Singh, Sangeeta Chandra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162841 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162841 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8743 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-
"Issue a writ of mandamus or any other Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent not to take any coercive action including auction/possession of the petitioner's property during pendency of petitioner's Securitizations Application No.692/2025 before the DRT, Lucknow. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or commanding the respondent- bank to accept re-payment of outstanding dues in reasonable instalments to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. It appears from the pleadings on record that the petitioner had taken a loan from the Punjab National Bank for commercial purposes and proceedings under the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act have been initiated by the Bank against the petitioner and an order under Section 14 of the Act was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : Brajendra Amiy Shree Sai Nath Traders And Suppliers Thru. Proprietor Ram Lakhan And Another .....Petitioner(s) Punajb National Bank Thru. Chief Manager And Authorized Officer, R.D.A. Complex Branch Raebareli .....Respondent(s)
also passed by the Additional District Magistrate Raebareli directing the petitioner to give possession. The petitioner has filed a Securitization Application No.692 of 2025 under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal Lucknow, which is pending, but no interim relief has been granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner.
4. The writ petition is not maintainable in view of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon, 2010 (8) SCC 110.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 8, 2025 Rahul WRIC No. 8743 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench