Allahabad High Court

M/S AGROHA GRANITE AND 6 OTHERSversusDEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 7 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The writ petition is disposed, directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the Securitisation Application No. 132 of 2018 promptly, with limited adjournments only in exceptional circumstances.

Summary

The petitioners filed a securitisation application (No. 132 of 2018) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) seeking to set aside recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. They alleged that the respondent bank had attached their property, issued demand and possession notices, and conducted e‑auctions without complying with the procedural requirements of the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioners sought a direction for the DRT to decide the securitisation application expeditiously and without unnecessary adjournments. Both parties agreed that no further affidavits would be filed and the matter could be decided at a fresh stage. The High Court ordered that the writ petition stand disposed, directing the DRT to decide the securitisation application promptly, allowing adjournments only in exceptional circumstances and not beyond 15 days at a stretch, and noted that the petitioners could seek interim relief through appropriate applications.

Issues considered

Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal should be directed to decide the Securitisation Application No. 132 of 2018 in a time‑bound manner without unnecessary adjournments.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed without further hearing, given the parties' consent and lack of further affidavits.

Legislation cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act — s. 13(2), 13(3-A), 13(4), 14
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules — s. 8(5), 8(6)

Subjects

SARFAESI Act
securitisation
Debt Recovery Tribunal
attachment of property
possession notice
e‑auction
writ petition
expeditious disposal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 11978 of 2026

M/S Agroha Granite And 6 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arpita Tarmali, Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pashupati Nath Tripathi

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
WRIC No. 11978 of 2026
2

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
3

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
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…