Allahabad High Court
M/S P.P. Fashion,Meerut Thru. Its ... vs Debt Recovery Tribunal Thru. Presiding ... on 21 January, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3684 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 164 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S P.P. Fashion,Meerut Thru. Its Proprietor Pappu And Another Respondent :- Debt Recovery Tribunal Thru. Presiding Officer And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Vinay Shankar and Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 262 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S P.P. Fashion Thru. Its Proprietor Pappu And Another Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Presiding Officer And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari,Shailaja Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Vinay Shankar Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.
2. Both the petitions are disposed of by means of this common order.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that challenging the action of the Bank in trying to auction the property and thereafter take possession. The proceedings are already pending before the DRT in SA No.118 of 2024. It is alleged that despite the petitioner feeling that there is an extreme urgency, an order dated 07.01.2025 came to be passed recording that the Bank has already taken possession and had issued a notice for removal of the goods lying on the property within a period seven days and there is no urgency as the matter was directed to be listed on 11.03.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank states that the property has already been auctioned and possession has been taken and handed over by the Bank to the auction purchaser and as such the Bank is not taking any steps to disturb the possession of the property in question.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on the one hand, a wrong statement is being made that the possession has already been taken, whereas the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the property in question and the issue is not being decided by the DRT.
6. Considering the said submission, the present petitions are disposed of directing the Presiding Officer of the DRT to pass an order on the interim application filed by the petitioner positively within a period of one week. While doing so, he shall pass a specific order with regard to the possession of the property.
7. The DRT shall also endeavour to decide the securitization appeal itself with all expedition preferably within a period of four months.
Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Ashutosh