PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/21945/2025 · 2025-07-10
Prashant Bilgaiyan Registrar J Criminal, Shekhar B Saraf
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 73432 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 73432 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111593-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21945 of 2025 Petitioner :- Punjab National Bank Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to decide the application being Case No. 564 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. D202405310000564) (Punjab National Bank vs. Sri Subhash Chand Jaiswal and another) under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 filed by the petitioner-Bank as early as possible within stipulated period for seeking order for taken physical possession of the secured property of the private respondents as per mandatory provisions of the Act, 2002 which is pending in the Court of District Magistrate, Gorakhpur.
3. The petitioner is a secured creditor. It had filed the above application for taking possession of the secured asset that was mortgaged in its favour by the respondent-borrowers while taking loan. The application is pending since 04.07.2024. It is urged by
learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no impediment in deciding the application inasmuch as the borrowers have not challenged the measures taken by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act before any court, authority or tribunal. It is submitted that in view of the third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, the application should have been decided within a period of 30 days and which period can be extended to a maximum period of 60 days for reasons to be recorded in writing.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents is not in a position to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Having regard to the mandate of law as contained in third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, we dispose of the instant petition with direction to respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to make all endeavor to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a true attested copy of the instant order.
Order Date :- 11.7.2025 K.Tiwari (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad