Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ASHWANI KUMAR CHAUHAN AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

High Courts cannot entertain writ petitions under Article 226 to quash notices issued under the SARFAESI Act.

Summary

The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to quash a notice dated 26‑10‑2023 issued by a private bank under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The respondents argued that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere in such matters, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. The Court examined the precedent, which holds that High Courts should refrain from interfering with debt‑recovery actions under the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, the Court declined to grant the writ, but directed the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act within four weeks, with a stay application, and outlined timelines for disposal. The petition was therefore consigned to the records without relief.

Issues considered

  • Whether a High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to quash a notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act
  • Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. bars High Court interference in SARFAESI matters

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Article 226
  • SARFAESI Act
  • certiorari
  • debt recovery
  • High Court jurisdiction
  • Debt Recovery Tribunal

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT - C No. - 18013 of 2026

Ashwani Kumar Chauhan And Another
                                                                       .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

Union Of India And 2 Others
                                                                     .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)               :   Rakesh Kumar, Sanjay Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s)               :   A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Manish Trivedi

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

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish
Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent bank 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 reliefs :

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
impugned notice dated 26.10.2023 under section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
issued by Respondent no. 3 (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition)."

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. 18013 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 petitioner applies 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
                                    Atmesh




Digitally signed by :-
ATMESH KESARI
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.