##PAGE1##

1

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV

WRIT PETITION NO.31051/2025

UCO BANK

Vs.

M/S ASHA OIL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCE:

Shri Praveen Surange – Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Santosh Agrawal – Advocate for the respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

{Pronounced on 28 ^th January, 2026}

Per: Justice Anand Pathak,

1. The instant Writ Petition under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of

India is filed seeking following reliefs:-

“I. That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed.

II. That, the impugned orders dated 14.05.2025 and 28.09.2021

passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad

in Regular Appeal No.15/2022 titled as Uco Bank-V-M/s. Asha Oil

Mills & Ors. and Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in S.A.

No.217/2019 titled as M/s. Asha Oil Mills & Ors. V. UCO Bank

respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside.

III. That, the directions issued by Learned Tribunal and Appellate

Tribunal in the impugned orders to the petitioner bank to return

money deposited by auction purchaser may kindly be quashed, being

contrary to the rules.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SANJEEV

KUMAR PHANSE

Signing time: 1/28/2026

6:10:27 PM

2

IV. That, the directions issued by learned DRT and thereafter by

learned DRAT in the impugned orders to restore physical possession

of the subject properties including the movable stock and

machineries to the respondents may kindly be quashed, being

impracticable to perform.

V. That, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the expenses

of present proceedings and other legal proceedings and

VI. Any other relief/ direction/ order which this Hon'ble Court deems

fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner/ UCO Bank is a

Government of India undertaking which is established under Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.

Respondent No.1 is a proprietorship concern acting through its

proprietor Shri Pradeep Shivhare and respondent No.2- Smt. Poonam

Shivhare. They availed the Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Limit to the

extent of Rs.05 crores from the petitioner/ Bank from time to time.

As a security of loan, respondents mortgaged their immovable

properties comprising of Plot No.63 Malanpur Industrial Area, Bhind

Road, District Bhind, M.P. (Mortgage property no.1) and plot no.58,

Laxmibail Colony, Gwalior (M.P.) (Mortgaged property no.2)

Respondents failed to comply with various terms of loan agreements

and defaulted. Therefore, Loan Account of respondents was

classified by the petitioner/ Bank as Non-Performing Assets (NPA)

w.e.f. 31/10/2018 in accordance with the guidelines issued by the

Reserve Bank of India from time to time. Chain of events precipitated

filing of this petition.

3. Following list of dates and events are worth consideration and the

same are as under:-

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SANJEEV

KUMAR PHANSE

Signing time: 1/28/2026

6:10:27 PM

3

Date Events

01/04/19 The respondents filed an application under Section 17(1) of

the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against respondent seeking

quashment of entire proceedings initiated by the petitioner/

Bank.

15/05/2019 Petitioner/ Bank filed detailed reply denying all the

allegations. Petitioner/ Bank filed an application for

amendment in the application filed by the respondents and

the same was allowed vide order dated 16.05.2019.

04/06/19 Respondents filed detailed additional reply to the amendment

application filed by the petitioner/ Bank.

17/08/2020 The respondents again filed an application for amendment.

& Respondents also filed an application dated 17/08/2020 for

22/10/2020 impleadment of auction purchaser M/s Shurti Corportaion

through its Proprietor Shri Pramod Gurjar as respondent

No.3. The said application was allowed vide