Allahabad High Court
MADANMOHANversusUNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed off/Decided on merits
Holding
The petition is dismissed as a writ under Article 226 cannot be filed against a private finance company; the petitioner must seek relief under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Summary
Madanmohan filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction from Union Bank of India to clarify his outstanding loan amount and to permit repayment in easy installments. The Allahabad High Court held that a writ petition cannot be maintained against a private finance company, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. Consequently, the court declined to grant the relief sought. Instead, it directed the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for an interim stay and subsequent adjudication. The court also prescribed timelines for the stay application and the substantive hearing. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Can a writ petition under Article 226 be filed against a private finance company for loan clarification?
- Is the court empowered to direct a private bank to allow installment repayment of a loan?
- What is the appropriate statutory remedy for the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act?
Legislation cited
- Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act — s. 17
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ petition
- private finance company
- SARFAESI Act
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- loan clarification
- installment repayment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 11403 of 2026
Madanmohan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Bank Of India And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.K. Singh Rajput
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Agrawal
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil
Kumar Bajpayee, learned counsel for Union Bank of India and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to make clear and
exact remaining loan amount of petitioner and thereafter allow him to
deposit the amount in easy installments.
3. In our considered view, petitioner cannot maintain a petition against
private company in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of
S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177 and
hence we decline to grant indulgence in the matter, however, liberty rests
with the petitioner to appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if so advised.
4. We provide that in the event petitioner moves an application under
Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act along with stay application within a
period of four weeks from today, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall first
dispose of the interim stay application after putting the private finance
company to notice within further period of four weeks of presentation of
such application and then shall endeavor to dispose of the application filed
under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
WRIC No. 11403 of 2026
2
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act within a further period of
two months.
5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
March 25, 2026
Jaideep/-
Digitally signed by :-
JAIDEEP BANERJEE
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…