HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6992 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Anas Sherwani, Advocate holding Brief of Shri Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ashish Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, Ms. Anchal Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri G.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Ms. Rubi Chaudhari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. By means of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of judgment and order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (for short "DRT") in Securitisation Application bearing S.A. No.591 of 2025 (Sunita Soni and Anr. Vs. Union Bank of India and Anr.) whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act, 2002".) 3. The learned counsel for the respondents have raised preliminary objection that the petitioners have got a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act and, therefore, the present petition cannot be entertained. 4. In reply to the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Farah Yusuf & 4 Ors. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer & 2 Ors., Matters Under Article 227 No.3954 of 2025 decided on 04.07.2025 whereby, this Court had entertained the petition filed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kunwar Ajeet Pratap Singh, Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Dixit, C.S.C., Kapish Srivastava Sunita Soni And Another .....Petitioner(s) Debts Recovery Tribunal,600/1,University Road,Near Hanuman Setu Mandir,Lucknow And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) against an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on a petition under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. He has further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shri. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.7472 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20428 of 2007 and has submitted that the decision of DRT was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the present petition is maintainable. 5. This Court had allowed the petition holding that the manner, in which the DRT had decided the S.A., was at least unknown to any decision making process in Indian Jurisprudence. 6. In the present case, a perusal of impugned order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer of DRT shows that he has taken into consideration the pleas taken by the petitioners and the pleas taken by the respondent- bank. The DRT has given reasons for passing of the order. The reasons may be insufficient or incorrect but that is a ground which may be raised by the petitioners in appeal. It cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the DRT has been rendered in a manner which is unknown to any decision making process in Indian Jurisprudence. 7. In such circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to entertain the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by permitting the petitioners to bypass the remedy of appeal provided under Section 18 of Securitization Act. 8. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 18 of Securitization Act against the order dated 15.10.2025 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. December 8, 2025V. Sinha A227 No. 6992 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench