Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111059-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20674 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Enkay Exports India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Arpita Tarmali,C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "I. Issue a suitable order, or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 5.6.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Agra vide Patrank No. 42/S.T (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to take coercive action against the petitioner over the property in dispute pursuant to the order dated 10.7.2023 or otherwise than in due accordance with law." It appears that the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal was subsequently partially allowed in appeal wherein the setting aside of the demand notice by the Debts Recovery Tribunal was set aside by the DRAT, however, setting aside of all consequential steps by the DRT was kept as intact in the order passed by the DRAT. The relevant portion of the DRAT order is delineated below: "14. Accordingly, the order Impugned is set aside to the extent of setting aside the demand notice Issued by the Bank and rest part of the same shall remain Intact. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with no order as to cost. 15. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the parties as well as the DRT concerned as be also uploaded on the e-DRT portal." In light of the above order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the bank is required to set the views on motion subsequent to the order passed under section 13(2) as all the subsequent actions have been quashed and set aside by the DRT. This submission is countered by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank who submits that since the demand notice has been held to be valid, all subsequent actions would automatically also be valid. He further submits that this confusion that has arisen may be clarified by the DRAT. In light of the same, the parties are directed to approach the DRAT to get a clarification/modification/variation of the order passed by the DRAT. In the meantime, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank has submitted that they shall not act in pursuance of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 05.06.2025 till the order passed by the DRAT is clarified. The impugned order dated 05.06.2025 is accordingly kept in abeyance till the DRAT clarifies its order passed on 13.09.2024. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 K.K. Maurya (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad