Allahabad High Court
KUNDAN KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot interfere with the bank’s recovery action under the SARFAESI Act and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
Kundan Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash a recovery notice dated 26‑06‑2025 issued by a private bank for pending EMIs and ECS bounce charges, to restrain coercive recovery proceedings, and to allow payment in instalments. The respondents argued that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with debt recovery actions of a private bank under the SARFAESI Act, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. The Court examined the precedent, which holds that High Courts should refrain from intervening in matters of debt liabilities and enforcement actions under the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, the Court declined to grant any relief, directing the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act if desired. The petition was consigned to the records, effectively dismissing it.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to quash a recovery notice issued by a private bank under the SARFAESI Act.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. precludes such interference.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 226
- SARFAESI Act
- Debt recovery
- Writ petition
- High Court jurisdiction
- Muthoot Finance precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10456 of 2026
Kundan Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madhu Sudan Dwivedi, Shrawan
Dwivedi
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,
petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the impugned recovery notice dated
26.06.2025 issued by Respondents No 2 in Ref No CFHL/KNP/RECOVERY/240-144 for
Rs. 45,324 of pending EMI'S with ECS BOUNCED charges to the petitioner (Annexure
No. 1 to this writ petition).
II. Issue a direction restraining the respondents from taking coercive recovery
proceedings against the petitioner.
III. Direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount in
reasonable instalments."
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,
WRIC No. 10456 of 2026
2
2002') by invoking extraordinary jurisdictional power under Article 226
of the Constitution.
5. In view of the above, we decline to grant indulgence in the matter.
However, liberty rests with the petitioner 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
Checking your session…