Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAHUL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The High Court held that it cannot interfere with the District Magistrate’s order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as per the Supreme Court’s guidance, and dismissed the petition.

Summary

The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to quash an order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor, invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in a debt recovery case. The respondents argued that the High Court should not interfere with actions of a private bank under the SARFAESI Act, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (2025). The Court examined the Supreme Court precedent, which directs High Courts to refrain from intervening in debt‑recovery matters under the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, the Court declined to grant the writ relief, but directed the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within four weeks, with a stay application, and to have the matter decided expeditiously. The petition was consigned to the records and effectively dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether a High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to quash an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
  • Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. precludes High Court interference in debt‑recovery actions under the SARFAESI Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Article 226
  • SARFAESI Act
  • writ of certiorari
  • debt recovery
  • High Court jurisdiction
  • District Magistrate order
  • Debt Recovery Tribunal

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 17978 of 2026

Rahul Kumar
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Lal Bahadur, Ram Sajiwan Prajapati
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C., Kundan Rai, Manish Trivedi

Court No. - 1
                  HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
                  HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Lal Bahadur Ram, 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,
petitioners have prayed for following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 15.04.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2/ District
Magistrate, Bijnor in Case No. 850 of 2025 (Chief Manager ICICI Bank
Versus Rahul Kumar) Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002."

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
                                                                                            WRIC No. 17978 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

                                    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 7, 2026
                                    IrfanUddin




Digitally signed by :-
IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.