Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

M/S SIDDHESHWAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to move an urgency application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, which must dispose of the stay application within a week.

Summary

Petitioner Siddheshwar Construction Co. filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a certiorari to quash an auction sale notice dated 22 April 2026, arguing that the auction was to be held on the same day and no presiding officer was available at the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Allahabad to hear its urgency application. The petitioner also sought a stay of the auction. The respondent bank contended that the DRT Jaipur has jurisdiction over the Allahabad and Lucknow benches on an urgent basis and that hearings could be conducted via video conferencing. The Court observed that the petitioner could still pursue an urgency application before the DRT Jaipur and that the tribunal should dispose of the stay application promptly. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file an urgency application within two weeks and the DRT Jaipur to decide the stay within one week thereafter.

Issues considered

  • Whether the auction sale notice dated 22 April 2026 can be quashed under Article 226.
  • Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur has jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's urgency application in place of the DRT Allahabad.
  • Whether the petitioner is required to approach the DRT Jaipur via video conferencing for the urgency application.

Subjects

  • Article 226
  • writ of certiorari
  • auction sale
  • Debt Recovery Tribunal
  • urgency application
  • video conferencing

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 19003 of 2026


M/S Siddheshwar Construction Company And 4
Others                                                      .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Harshit Kumar Srivastava, Himanshu
                                  Srivastava, Madan Lal Srivastava, Om
                                  Prakash Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Anadi Krishna Narayana, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish
Mehrotra, 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 writ of certiorari to quash the auction sale notice
dated 22nd April, 2026.

3. Learned Senior Advocate submits that urgency is there and as today is
the date fixed for auction and there is no presiding officer is available at
Debt Tribunal Allahabad to hear and decide the urgency application. It is
further submitted that petitioner has also moved stay application seeking
stay upon the auction sale notice.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by Sri Manish Mehrotra, learned counsel for
the respondent bank that though there is no presiding officer at Debt
Recovery Tribunal but Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur is having
jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad as well as Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow on urgency basis and even today cause list
is published and those who are interested in pursuing remedy they can
seek an opportunity to argue their case through video conferencing.
                                                                                           WRIC No. 19003 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    5. In view of the above, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the
                                    petitioner to move urgency application for expediting hearing of stay
                                    application within a period of two weeks from today before the Debt
                                    Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur through video conferencing and in the event he
                                    moves urgency application as directed herein above, the Debt Recovery
                                    Tribunal, Jaipur shall dispose of the pending stay application of the
                                    petitioner within a next one week's time after giving an opportunity of
                                    hearing to the petitioner.



                                                                       (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
                                    May 14, 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.