HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 11978 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pashupati Nath Tripathi, learned counsel who appears for respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the respondent nos. 5 to 8. 3. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage. 4. The case of the petitioners is that the Petitioners filed Securitisation Application No. 132 of 2018 before the DRT, Allahabad on 09.05.2018 for setting aside entire recovery proceeding initiated under SARFAESI Act, 2002 till the stage of possession. As per the petitioners, the respondent Bank had preferred an Original Application no. 493 of 2017 on 05.07.2017 before DRT, Allahabad alongwith an application bearing No. 1044 of 2017 for attachment of property before judgment. That vide order dated 10.07.2017, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has attached the entire assets while appointing court commissioner. The respondent bank thereafter issued a fresh Demand Notice dated 16.10.2017 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Petitioners after withdrawing the earlier demand notice dated 08.03.2016 with all consequential notices. After receiving the demand notice dated 16.10.2017, the Petitioners submitted their Objection/Representation dated 15.12.2017 to demand notice, under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Authorised Officer of the respondent bank decided the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arpita Tarmali, Sanjay Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pashupati Nath Tripathi M/S Agroha Granite And 6 Others .....Petitioner(s) Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) Objection/Representation dated 15.12.2017 submitted by the Petitioners on 30.12.2017 and proceeded under SARFAESI Act, 2002 while issuing a possession notice dated 26.02.2018 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and took symbolic possession of the property in dispute and after issuing the possession notice dated 26.02.2018, the respondent bank published the possession notice in daily Hindi newspaper and during the pendency of Securitisation Application, respondent bank obtained an order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 10.07.2018 in pursuance to application filed by the bank under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the District Magistrate, Banda on 02.04.2018 and the order dated 10.07.2018 was challenged by the Petitioners before this Court by filing writ petition no. 25581 of 2018 in which on 10.08.2018, a direction was issued to respondent bank to file counter affidavit, however, it has been dismissed. However, without servicing any 30 days sale notice to the Petitioners in compliance to provisions under Rule 8(6) as well as without taking any valuation in compliance with the provisions of Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the respondent bank published sale auction notice dated 20.08.2018 and took symbolic possession of the property on 01.11.2018. 5. It is also the case of the petitioners is that the respondent bank issued a fresh E-auction notice dated 24.10.2018 and also issued a fresh E-auction notice dated 29.01.2019 and got it published the same in Daily Hindi Newspaper "AMAR UJALA" on 03.02.2019. Thereafter on 20.09.2020 again respondent bank published the E-auction notice and the petitioners thereafter filed an amendment application I.A. no. 243 of 2020 to challenge the e-auction notice dated 20.09.2020 and on 20.10.2020, an objection so preferred by the petitioners that the the respondent bank proceeded under SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the unsecured assets in question as the Tribunal vide order dated 10.07.2017 had already attached the mortgaged properties in O.A. No. 493 of 2017 came to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Transcore v. Union of India and Another; 2007 AIR (SC) 2007. Against which an appeal came to be preferred which has also been rejected by virtue of the order dated 04.02.2026. 6. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition. WRIC No. 11978 of 2026 2 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made manifold submission assailing both the orders, however, he confines his relief for deciding the Securitisation Application No. 132 of 2018 in time bound manner so as to extinguish any issue relatable to multiplicity and complicity in that regard. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of requiring the Tribunal to decide the Securitisation Application No. 132 of 2018, in accordance with law, expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments, if adjournment has been sought then on exceptional circumstances, it should not be beyond 15 days at a stretch. 10. It is always open for the writ petitioners to prefer an appropriate application which is maintainable under law seeking interim protection and this Court has no reason to disbelieve then the same shall be considered in accordance with law. May 7, 2026 Ashu WRIC No. 11978 of 2026 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad