Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uco Bank vs Ms Kohli Bike Sales And Sarvice on 5 May, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34923
1 WP-14893-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 14893 of 2026
UCO BANK
Versus
MS KOHLI BIKE SALES AND SARVICE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Abhinav Sunil Kherdikar - Advocate for the petitioner-Bank.
Mr. Premendra Singh - Advocate for the respondents No.1 to
3/Caveator.
Ms. Kanak Gaharwar - Government Advocate for the respondents
No.4 and 5/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak With consent, heard finally.
2. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur to decide the Securitization Application No. 1174 of 2023 (M/s Kohli Bike Sales & Service and Another vs. UCO Bank & Others) in the interest of justice;
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur to decide the application for interim relief filed in Securitization Application No. 1174 of 2023 (M/s Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET KAUR JASSAL Signing time: 07-05-2026 14:52:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34923 2 WP-14893-2026 Kohli Bike Sales & Service and Another vs. UCO Bank & Others) in time bound manner in the interest of justice;
(iii) In alternative, this Hon'ble Court may decide application for interim relief filed by the Respondent No.1 to 3 in Securitization Application No. 1174 of 2023 (M/s Kohli Bike Sales & Service and Another vs. UCO Bank & Others) in the interest of justice.
(iv) Award cost of the writ petition."
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner-Bank that the matter pertains to the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act 2002') wherein proceeding under Section 14 of the Act 2002 culminated and direction was given for taking possession. Meanwhile, respondents no.1 to 3 moved W.P. No.30903/2023 seeking interim relief because respondents tried to prefer S.A. under Section 17 of Act 2002 before DRT, Jabalpur, but because of some technical glitch in online filing the said S.A. was not accepted by the Office of DRT, Jabalpur.
4. In said writ petition vide order dated 15.12.2023 certain directions were given and meanwhile interim protection was accorded to the private respondents while depositing Rs.3,00,000/- within three working days. Now, predicament of secured creditor is that private respondents are enjoying the possession and not paying any regular installments.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 fairly submits that since the stay is operative against the petitioner-Bank, therefore, no proceedings can take place in respect of taking over possession. However, he fairly submits that Rs.3,00,000/- were earlier deposited.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET KAUR JASSAL Signing time: 07-05-2026 14:52:35NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34923 3 WP-14893-2026
6. Considering the rival submissions and peculiar nature of dispute, it appears that petitioner-Bank has a genuine cause for seeking relief against the borrowers. However, DRT Jabalpur is not functional, therefore, if any application is preferred by borrowers under Section 17 of the Act 2002, then in absence of Presiding Officer, no order is likely to be passed, thus rendering the litigants remediless. Therefore, in conspectus of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, learned Division Bench passed the order on 15.12.2023 in W.P. No.30903/2023. However, it is also true that being a secured creditor, Bank has to realise the due amount as it is public money.
7 . Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application for early hearing of the case so that whenever Presiding Officer takes charge in DRT, he may make an endeavor to decide the application at an expeditious note. Whenever Presiding Officer is appointed and DRT Jabalpur becomes functional then petitioner-Bank shall be at liberty to move appropriate application as referred.
8. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of.
9. In case of long period consumed for appointment of any Presiding Officer, the petitioner may be at liberty to move an appropriate petition before this Court on fresh cause of action/facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that, meanwhile, if the parties enter into settlement, as one time settlement, then they are free to do so.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET KAUR JASSAL Signing time: 07-05-2026 14:52:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34923 4 WP-14893-2026 (ANAND PATHAK) (B. P. SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE sjk Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET KAUR JASSAL Signing time: 07-05-2026 14:52:35