M/S HIMANSHU TRADING COMPANY AND 2 OTHERS v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (FINANCE / REVENUE) AND 2 OTHERS
WRIC/13119/2025 · 2025-04-29
Shekhar B Saraf, Y K Srivastava
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50553 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50553 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68113-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13119 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Himanshu Trading Company And 2 Others Respondent :- Additional District Magistrate (Finance / Revenue) And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Mohan Asthana 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- respondent and Sri Sagar Srivastava holding brief of Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"1. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by respondent No.1 i.e. Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Adjudicating Officer, District Jhansi in case No.3667 of 2023 and case No.77 of 2023 Canara Bank Vs. M/s Himanshu Trading Company and others and as well as to quash the notice dated 15.04.2025 issued by Authorised Officer/ Chief Manager Canara Bank, Kanpur during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition before this Hon'ble High Court. (Annexure No.5 and 7 respectively).
2. to issue a further writ, order or direction to the petitioners no.1 and 2 are willing to repay the outstanding legitimate loan amount of the bank in future through reasonable and affordable installments as per their financial capacity, without interest and compound interest."
3. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the writ petition is misconceived as the petitioners have alternative remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of a
securitisation application.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of their grievances.
5. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
6. Office to return certified copy of the order after retaining photostat copy thereof. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Shahroz (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad