Allahabad High Court
AMRENDRA KUMAR JAISWALversusUNION BANK OF INDIA
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, and the petitioner may move an application for disposal of the SARFAESI Act petition via video conferencing.
Summary
Petitioner Amrendra Kumar Jaiswal filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing Union Bank of India to return possession of secured assets, claiming he had repaid all dues. The bank contended that the petitioner had already filed a petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, making the writ petition non‑maintainable. The petitioner argued that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Allahabad had no presiding officer, and thus his SARFAESI petition was pending without hearing. The Court noted that the DRTs in Jaipur and Lucknow have jurisdiction over the Allahabad area and directed that the petitioner be allowed to seek disposal of the SARFAESI petition via video conferencing. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, with the Court ordering the SARFAESI matter to be heard and disposed of within two months of a certified copy of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when a petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is pending.
- Whether the absence of a presiding officer at the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad, bars the petitioner's remedy.
- Whether the petitioner can be permitted to seek disposal of the SARFAESI petition through video conferencing.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- Article 226
- SARFAESI Act
- secured assets
- possession
- video conferencing
- Debts Recovery Tribunal
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17701 of 2026
Amrendra Kumar Jaiswal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Bank Of India
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shalendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Agrawal
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Heard Sri Shalendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Om Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent bank.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner wants issuance of writ of mandamus to command the respondent
bank to return the physical possession of the secured assets.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has paid back the
entire dues of the bank and therefore, the bank is not entitled to recovery the
possession, however, wholly illegally bank has taken the possession of the
secured assets.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondent bank that petitioner has
already filed petition under Section 17 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002and therefore, present petition is not maintainable.
Upon a pointed query being made, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there is no Presiding Officer at Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and
therefore, the petition is not being heard and decided. However, he is not
opposed to hearing being granted to him through video conferencing. We
have been informed at the bar that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur is
having the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.
WRIC No. 17701 of 2026
2
In the circumstances, we hereby provide that in the event petitioner moves
an application for disposal of the petition filed under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 through video conferencing, his application shall be
granted and matter shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law
within a period of two months of presentation of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands
disposed of.
(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…