Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

LOKESH KUMAR JOSHI AND ANOTHERversusADDITIONAL/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (FINANCE AND REVENUE) AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The High Court declined to grant the writ relief, holding that it must not interfere with the SARFAESI Act proceedings and directing the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17.

Summary

Petitioners Lokesh Kumar Joshi and another filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash an order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) in a case involving Jana Small Finance Bank, and to restrain the bank from taking physical possession of land. The respondents, represented by C.S.C., contended that the High Court should not interfere with actions of a private financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. The Court examined the scope of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and the precedent that High Courts must refrain from interfering in debt‑recovery matters under the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the Court declined to grant the writ relief, directing the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act if they wish to challenge the action. The petition was therefore consigned to the records.

Issues considered

  • Whether a High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to quash an order and restrain a private bank’s action under the SARFAESI Act.
  • Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. precludes interference by the High Court in debt‑recovery matters.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Article 226
  • writ jurisdiction
  • SARFAESI Act
  • debt recovery
  • private bank
  • certiorari
  • mandamus
  • Debt Recovery Tribunal

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                             WRIT - C No. - 10395 of 2026

Lokesh Kumar Joshi And Another
                                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                            Versus

Additional/District Magistrate (Finance And
Revenue) And Another                                                       .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                              :    Tarun Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)                              :    C.S.C.

Court No. - 1
                HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
                HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioners have prayed for following relief :-
     "A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned

     order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance District-

     and Revenue) Chandauli in Case No.492 of 2025 (Jana Small Finance Bank Limited Vs.

     Lokesh Kumar Joshi and others).

     B) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing

     the respondents restraining the respondents from taking physical possession of the land

     in pursuant to the order impugned."

3. Per contra, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the respondent
financial institution being a private Bank, this Court may not like to
interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in the light of the
judgement in the case of S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025
SCC OnLine SC 177.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
relief claimed in this petition and also the judgement in the case of
Muthoot Finance (supra) in which the Supreme Court has held that the
High Courts should refrain themselves from interfering in matters of debt
liabilities and the consequential action taken by such financial institutions
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the 'SARFAESI Act,
2002') by invoking extraordinary jurisdictional power under Article 226
                                                                                            WRIC No. 10395 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    of the Constitution.
                                    5. In view of the above, we decline to grant indulgence in the matter.
                                    However, liberty rests with the petitioners to apply under Section 17 of
                                    the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, if so
                                    advised.
                                    6. Subject to aforesaid liberty, petition stands consigned to records.


                                                                (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Shiv




Digitally signed by :-
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.