Allahabad High Court
TRISHA SAXENAversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court declined to quash the notice and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to raise the issue of illegal possession before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Summary
The petitioner, Trisha Saxena, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash a notice dated 30.02.2026 issued by an Advocate Commissioner that led to possession of her property by a bank. She argued that only the bank, not the Advocate Commissioner, was authorized to issue such notice. The court noted that the petitioner had already initiated parallel proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing a securitization application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The judges held that the issue of alleged illegal possession could be raised before the DRT through an interim application, and that the writ court should not intervene while the DRT case is pending. Consequently, the court declined to grant the writ relief, directing the petitioner to approach the DRT for appropriate orders within four weeks of presenting a certified copy of the judgment. The petition was therefore consigned to the records.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is valid for effecting possession by the bank
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when parallel proceedings are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
- Whether the petitioner should seek relief against alleged illegal possession through the DRT
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ Petition
- Illegal Possession
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- Securitization Act
- Bank
- Jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17642 of 2026
Trisha Saxena
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Firoz Haider
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Krishna Mohan Asthana,
Satendra Kumar
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Heard Sri Firoz Haider, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Sarthak Srivastava, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Krishna Mohan
Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent bank.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notice dated 30.02.2026 issued to
the borrower.
It is contended that it is the bank who required to issue notice and not the
Advocate Commissioner, but the possession has been taken on the basis of
notice issued by Advocate Commissioner.
Upon perusal of records, we further find that the petitioner has already
approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing Securitization Application
under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
In the circumstances, when the petitioner is already litigating the matter
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, he may raise this issue also of illegal
possession by the bank before the Tribunal itself by moving interim
application, if so advised.
Hence, we decline to grant indulgence in the matter.
However, liberty rests with the petitioner to apply before the Tribunal for an
WRIC No. 17642 of 2026
2
action against the bank for taking illegal possession and if such application is
moved, the Tribunal will be considering the same and passing appropriate
orders thereupon within a period of four weeks of presentation of certified
copy of this order.
Subject to aforesaid liberty, this petition consigned to records.
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
May 6, 2026
IrfanUddin
Digitally signed by :-
IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…