Allahabad High Court
ASHWANI KUMAR KAMBOJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot interfere under Article 226 in matters governed by the SARFAESI Act and dismissed the petition.
Summary
Petitioner Ashwani Kumar Kamboj filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a certiorari to quash a sale notice dated 20.03.2026 issued by a private finance company. The respondents contended that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with actions taken under the SARFAESI Act, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. The Court examined the precedent and concluded that High Courts must refrain from intervening in debt‑recovery matters under the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within four weeks and seek a stay, after which the matter would be expedited. The petition was consigned to the records.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to quash a sale notice issued by a private finance company 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
- certiorari
- debt recovery
- private bank
- High Court jurisdiction
- stay application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17431 of 2026
Ashwani Kumar Kamboj
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pavan Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ramesh Kumar Shukla
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned sale notice dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ
petition), issued by respondent Finance Company."
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 S.
Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (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 of the Constitution.
WRIC No. 17431 of 2026
2
5. In view of the above, we decline to grant indulgence in the matter.
However, we still provide that in the event petitioners apply before the
Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002
within a period of four weeks from today along with stay application and
if he does so, the said application shall be considered after putting the
bank to notice and dispose of the same within a further period of four
weeks thereafter and thereafter securitization application itself shall be
disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period
of three months.
6. Subject to aforesaid liberty, petition stands consigned to records.
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
May 5, 2026
IrfanUddin
Digitally signed by :-
IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…