Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26930 (ALL)

OMKAR ALIAS OMKAR RAGHAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/6888/2025 · 2025-04-07

Siddhartha Varma, Y K Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50392-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6888 of 2025 Petitioner :- Omkar Alias Omkar Raghav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Kartikeya, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. When earlier an auction sale was to take place of the petitioner's secured assets, the petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ-C No.- 23983 of 2024, wherein the following order was passed:- "1. The petitioner has challenged the auction sale notice dated 21.06.2024 issued by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. 2. Respondent No. 2 is a private finance company. It had extended financial assistance to the petitioner and since there was default in repayment of loan and therefore, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act. It has been held by Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. vs Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others, 2022 (5) SCC 345 that writ petition against a private finance company is not maintainable. Moreover, the petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and therefore, in view of judgment of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, we decline to entertain the challenge. 3. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedy as may be advised." 3. When the petitioner did not avail the opportunity, as was provided to him in the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in Writ- C No.23983 of 2024 and the possession of the property was now being taken over, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Definitely the petitioner has not availed the opportunity, as was granted to him, as per the order dated 26.07.2024. A second writ petition for virtually the same cause of action, therefore, would not be maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Radhika (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad