Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45592 Judgment reserved on 30.07.2025 Judgment delivered on 06.08.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW)

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.3953 of 2025 Vimla Kashyap and Ors ….. petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors …. Respondents Counsel for Petitioner(s): Sri Alok Saxena & Sri Paras Pradhan Counsel for Respondent(s): A.S.G.I., C.S.C. & Sri Abhishek Khare CORAM: HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

J U D G M E N T

06.08.2025

1. Heard Sri Alok Saxena,learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Khare, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow whereby, the application of the petitioners for grant of interim benefits was dismissed observing that S.A. filed by the petitioners is hopelessly barred by limitation.

3. The facts in brief that emerge are that the petitioner had availed a credit facility from the assignor of respondent no.3. Subsequently, the loan amount was assigned to the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.3 initiated proceedings for realization of the dues by taking recourse to The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act).

4. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is that no notice under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was ever served upon the petitioners in terms of the stipulations contained in The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2002 Rules”). It is argued that the petitioners came to know of the proceedings being initiated on 15.04.2025 when the information notice was affixed on the property owned by the petitioner no.1-Vimla Kashyap indicating that the physical possession of the property will be taken on or after 02.05.2025 in terms of an order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is claimed that the petitioners obtained a copy of the order passed by the ADM, Lucknow along with the other proceedings, which were contained in the application under Section 14, and thereafter approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (in short “the DRT”) by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on 21.04.2025 along with an application for condonation of delay, which was registered as S.A. No.405 of 2025. The said delay condonation application was filed as an abundant caution, although, the S.A. was within the limitation from the date of the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Several grounds were pleaded in the S.A. with regard to the irregularities in terms of the provisions contained in the 2002 Rules. Along with the said S.A., the petitioners had also filed an application for grant of interim relief, which was rejected vide order dated 02.05.2025.

5. It is also stated that the petitioners had approached this Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being Matters Under Article 227 No.2946 of 2025 and the order dated 02.05.2025 came to be quashed vide order dated 16.05.2025 mainly on the ground that the said rejection was without any application of mind. Considering the manner in which the applications were being disposed of, this Court had directed to send a copy of this order to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi for taking appropriate steps for imparting training to the officer concerned in view of the series of orders being passed, which are bereft of any reasoning. The said judgment is on record as Annexure-10. It is stated that in compliance of the said order, the matter was heard again and vide impugned order dated 17.05.2025, the application for interim relief was once again dismissed. The said order is again under challenge. The DRT dismissed the delay condonation appli