HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8921 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Abhishek Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank and perused the material available on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No. 599 of 2024 on the fact as emerges are that the petitioner had filed three applications before the D.R.T., Lucknow, one being for early hearing, the other being an amendment application and third being an application for restraining the Bank from putting the property on e-auction on 22.08.2025. The D.R.T. disposed of the said application by recording that the physical possession of the property has already been taken by the respondent-Bank. It further observed that any e-auction by the bank shall be subject to final outcome of the S.A. 3. It is informed at the bar that the movable assets of the petitioner was sold in pursuance to auction. It is further alleged that the 'goods' which belongs to the petitioner and were not part of the hypothecated property have also been sold out without any authority of law. 4. Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondent- Bank, has handed over the list of inventory prepared at the time of taking the possession in selling of the movable assets hypothecated to the bank. The said list is taken on record. He states that only the hypothecated assets have been sold and the possession thereof has been delivered. 5. Considering the nature of the order passed, no interference is called for in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Khare, Saumya Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anurag Srivastava, C.S.C. Pawan Gupta .....Petitioner(s) U.O.I. Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. The petitioner, however, would be entitled to take such steps as may be advised under law. He would also be entitled to move an application before the respondent-Bank for return of the goods for which, the inventory has been handed over by the respondent-bank and which have not hypothecated, which shall be returned to the petitioner on moving an appropriate application. 8. The petitioner would also be at liberty to prefer an appeal, if so advised, in accordance with law. 9. The respondent assures that the goods shall be returned within a period of one week after moving an appropriate application by the petitioner before the respondent-Bank. September 11, 2025 Praveen WRIC No. 8921 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench