HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9544 of 2025 CONNECTED WITH WRIT - C No. - 9545 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, the learned Central Government Advocate, who has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2, Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rishabh Raj, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.4, Sri Pritish Kumar, Sri Divyanshu Bhatt, Sri Shashwat Singh, Sri Rishav Raj, Sri Chiranjivi Sharma, Sri Abhayaditya Singh and Sri Prakher Shukla, the learned counsel for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudeep Kumar, Amjad Siddiqui, Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Satish Gulati Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Ashwani Kumar Singh, Divyanshu Bhatt, Pritish Kumar, Shashwat Singh Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudeep Kumar, Amjad Siddiqui, Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Satish Gulati Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Ashwani Kumar Singh, Divyanshu Bhatt, Pritish Kumar, Shashwat Singh M/S Shipra Hotels Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Thru. Secy. New Delhi And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) M/S Shipra Hotels Ltd. Thru. Auth.Sign./Auth. Officer. .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Finance Thru. Secy. .....Respondent(s) the opposite party no.6. 2. At the oral request made by the petitioners he is permitted to implead (i) Shipra Estates Limited, through its Director Mr. Jai Prakash Sharma, Registered Office at Flat No.502, 502-A, 5th Floor, 23 Barakhamba Road, Narin Manzil, New Delhi-110001, and (ii) Shipra Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Subsidiary of (Shipra Estates Limited) Through its Authorized Representative, Registered Office at Flat No.502, 502-A, 5th Floor, 23 Barakhamba Road, Narin Manzil, New Delhi-110001 as proforma opposite parties no.7 and 8 to the petition. The request is formal in nature and it does not affect the nature of the case. Accordingly, the request is allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to incorporate the amendments in the petition forthwith. 3. The Writ-C No.9544 of 2025 and Writ-C No.9545 of 2025 have been filed challenging the validity of one and the same order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in SA No.337 of 2023 only to the extent that the order clarifies that only SA No.337 of 2023 is being heard and other cases bearing SA No.469 of 2023, R.A. No.10 of 2023 and R.A. No.14 of 2023 are only tagged for complete adjudication of the matter. 4. Writ-C No.9544 of 2025 has been filed being aggrieved by non hearing R.A. No.14 of 2023 and Writ-C No.9545 of 2025 has been filed being aggrieved by non hearing of R.A. No.10 of 2023. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the petitions substantially arise out of the same series of disputes between the parties and their decision together would be necessary for complete adjudication of the matter. Although, all the matters are connected, the clarification made by Debts Recovery Tribunal in the impugned order that S.A. No.469 of 2023, R.A. No.10 of 2023 and R.A. No.14 of 2023 are only tagged with S.A. No.337 of 2023 for complete adjudication of the matter and at the same time declining to adjudicate upon S.A. No.469 of 2023, R.A. No.10 of 2023 and R.A. No.14 of 2023, appears to be counter productive as tagging of cases for complete adjudication of the matter would only be fruitful when the matters are actually WRIC No. 9544 of 2025 2 adjudicated together. 6. Although, several points were raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties raising various please but ultimately the learned counsel for the opposite parties confine their submission to the effect that the order passed by this court should not result in delay in disposal of the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and this order may not be misused by the petitioner to throat the hearing before the D.R.T. They have submitted that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is S.A. No.337 of 2023 already stand concluded and he did not choose to advance submissions in respect of other cases simultaneously. Therefore, they have a serious apprehension about disposal of the proceedings being delayed by the petitioner. 7. When the D.R.T. itself has observed in the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 that the matters have been tagged for complete adjudication of the matter, the complete adjudication can only be made when the matters are actually adjudicated together. However, the concern raised by learned counsel for the opposite parties also needs to be addressed properly. 8. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of by issuing direction that the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall decide all the tagged matters i.e. S.A. No.337 of 2023, S.A. No.469 of 2023, R.A. No.10 of 2023 and R.A. No.14 of 2023 together. No adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties on any ground whatsoever. In case a particular learned counsel is not available to assist the Tribunal on the date of hearing the parties shall have to make suitable alternative arrangement. 9. It is made clear that this court has not delved into the merits of the matter and all the please both legal and factual are open to be raised before the Tribunal, which shall be considered and decided by the learned Tribunal on their merits in accordance with law. October 9, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 9544 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench