M/S KAUSHIK ELECTRONICS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/10319/2025 · 2025-04-08
Shekhar B Saraf, Y K Srivastava
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38745 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38745 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52038-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10319 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Kaushik Electronics Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Anadi Krishna Narayana,C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Satyajeet Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has prayed for the following substantial reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Possession Notice dated 28.03.2025 Rule-8 (1) read with Rule 8 (2) an Appendix IV of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and read with Section 13 (4) SARFAESI Act, 2002 issued by the Respondent
No.4
against
the
petitioner. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the respondent No.4 to deposit the entire loan amount of Rs.8,99,425.06/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Five and Six Paise only) in easy instalment during the pendency of the writ petition."
3. Upon hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perusing the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. In the event the petitioner approaches the Tribunal within a period of two weeks from date, the Tribunal is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, decide the matter of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Kuldeep (Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad