UNIVERSAL TIMBER CORPORATION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR AND 2 OTHERS v. BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER NEW FRIENDS COLONY BRANCH
WRIC/2698/2025 · 2025-02-14
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8585 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 8585 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21582 Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2698 of 2025 Petitioner :- Universal Timber Corporation Through Its Proprietor And 2 Others Respondent :- Bank Of India Through Its Authorized Officer New Friends Colony Branch Counsel for Petitioner :- Archit Mandhyan Counsel for Respondent :- Arif Ikbal Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"i. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of by certiorari by quashing aside the sale notice dated 19.12.2024 issued by the respondent no.1 by means of which the auction sale of the property belonging to the petitioner is scheduled after one month. ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. 849 of 2024 and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration. iii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent bank from taking any coercive measure of auction after one month of notice dated 19.12.2024 relating to the property in question described in the sale notice dated 19.12.2024. iv. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus fixing installments as this Hon'ble Court deems fit as per the schedule provided in the OTS Scheme, 2023 of Bank of India, and/or may pass such other suitable order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and consider proper under the circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicants/ petitioners shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."
Learned counsel appearing for the Bank contends that already the matter is engaging attention of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No. 849 of
2024. He further submits that against the interim sale notice, petitioner has remedy of challenging the same before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18(1) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.2.2025 V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad