HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9546 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Saurabh Rai, learned counsel, holding brief of Shri Jitendra Saksena, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as Shri Alok Saxena, learned counsel representing the respondent- Bank and perused the material available on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.09.2025, whereby, the interim application restraining the respondent- Bank from taking physical possession during the pendency of the S.A. has been rejected. 3. The facts in brief are that, the petitioner no.2 and 3 had availed a home loan and petitioner no.1 had availed a term loan and Cash Credit limit from the respondent-bank. Subsequently, there was a default and a notice was served under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding the amount as depicted therein, subsequently, on 28.11.2024, a possession notice was also issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which is claimed to be not served upon the petitioner. 4. It is claimed that the possession notice was published in newspaper and, thereafter, on 27.12.2024, the term loan account of Rs. 5,90,000/- was closed, however, there being a dispute, proceedings were continued under the SARFAESI Act without disclosure that the term loan has been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Saksena Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anurag Srivastava, C.S.C. M/S G.S.M. Bricks And Tiles Thru. Pro. Manpreet Kaur And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Bank Of India , Sme Center 05029 Habibulla Estate Lko. Thru. Authorized Officer And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) closed. 5. It transpires that on 10.02.2025, an auction notice was issued by the bank proposing to auction the properties of the petitioners. Aggrieved against the said, the petitioners have preferred an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act along with an application for condonation of delay before the D.R.T. being S.A. No. 290 of 2025 challenging the demand notice, the possession notice and the sale notice on various grounds. Thereafter, the respondent- Bank has filed an objection against the delay condonation application and also objected to, the contention of the petitioners on merits with regard to the compliances. 6. It is stated that the bank ultimately sold the property on 06.05.2025, which according to the petitioner was also contrary to the rules. It also transpires that the bank had approached the District Magistrate, Lucknow by filing an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, in which, objections were filed by the petitioners, however, an order was passed on 02.08.2025, directing the taking of possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner filed an amendment application challenging the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that although, an earlier order has been passed by the D.R.T. that 15 days notice shall be given prior to taking possession, an order was passed on 02.08.2025 stating that the possession would be taken on 23.09.2025. Aggrieved against the action, the petitioner filed an interim application seeking interim relief against the possession to which, the reply was also submitted by the auction purchaser, however, the interim relief application came to be dismissed on 20.09.2025. 7. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that by passing the impugned order, none of the grounds which were raised by the petitioners, challenging the action of the bank in not following the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules was decided or considered, the only reason recorded by the D.R.T. while passing the impugned order is that the sale certificate has been issued in favour of the auction purchaser, hence, no ground was available for restraining the bank taking over of possession as after the sale certificate the auction purchaser is the real owner of the property. The main S.A. was directed to be listed for WRIC No. 9546 of 2025 2 final hearing on 28.05.2026. The said approach of the D.R.T. is wholly erroneous and although, an appeal, lies under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, however, a non-speaking order, cannot be justified and is amenable to judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the order impugned, no reasoning whatsoever has been recorded and the reasoning recorded are ex facie erroneous. 8. In view thereof, the same cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed. 9. The matter is remanded to the D.R.T. concerned to pass fresh order after considering the recording primafacie opinion with regard to the arguments raised by the petitioners and, thereafter, consider the grant of interim relief. 10. The D.R.T. shall also endeavour to decide the S.A. itself with all expedition preferably within a period of three months. The interim relief application shall be disposed of preferably within a period of four weeks. 11. Till the decision on the interim application, as directed above, no action for forceful dispossession shall take against the petitioner. 12. Shri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank is requested to communicate this order to the officer concerned. 13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. September 23, 2025 Praveen WRIC No. 9546 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench