M/S Shree Radhe Traders Through Its Proprietor Ms. Shweta Acharya And Others vs Union Bank Of India

Anand Pathak, J

Present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

"(i) This Hon'ble Court may issue a writ of certiorari /or any other appropriate Writ and direct the respondent bank to grant permission to the petitioners to sale the mortgaged properties and deliver the entire outstanding amount as on the date of demand notice dated 17/07/2025 to redeem the mortgage under section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act, 2002;

(ii) Declare the action taken by the bank on 17/10/2025 under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as illegal and in non-compliance of law available in section 13(3A) read with Rule (3A);

(iii) Declare that the representation dated 15/09/2025, decided by the legal adviser on 17/10/2025 is illegal and without authority of law; in alternative;

(iv) Direct the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad to hear the S.A. No. 1159/2025 urgently and pass a suitable order prior to publication of auction by the bank;

(v) To allow the cost of this petition with any other appropriate relief(s) may kindly be granted to the petitioner and,

(vi) To pass any other or further order(s) deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the matter."

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that being borrower, they suffered proceedings under Section 13 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Act, 2002"). Now Bank intends to proceed for auction of the property. Meanwhile petitioners gave a one time settlement proposal to the respondent/Union Bank of India but same was rejected. Thereafter, Bank gave an offer to the petitioners for redumption of mortgage, which is accepted by the petitioners and the same is reflected from e-mail dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P/9). Petitioners as borrowers categorically submit that they are ready to pay the amount sought by the Bank to redeem the mortgage.

However, predicament of petitioners is that petitioners moved application under Section 17 the Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (in short "DRT"), Jabalpur but same is not functional. Therefore, matters are being transferred to DRT, Allahabad. Said authority is taking all efforts to consider the cases coming from DRT, Jabalpur but due to over flow of work, has assigned one hour of hearing per day to matters coming from DRT, Jabalpur. Only anxiety of the petitioners is for consideration of their application so that matter can be resolved between petitioners and Bank. He specifically submits that they are ready to settle the matter.

Counsel for the respondent fairly submits that if any application is preferred before the DRT Jabalpur/Allahabad and if any order is passed in this regard, then Bank shall certainly comply the same and may consider accordingly for settlement of case if it falls as per Bank policy.

Considering the submissions without adverting on merits of the case, this petition is disposed of. Petitioners are relegated back to DRT, Jabalpur and DRT, Allahabad with a request to consider the application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 preferred by the petitioners at an expeditious note, so that petitioners as well as Bank may not face lengthy procedure of realization of money and may settle their matter as per terms and conditions of the Bank (policy of Bank).

With aforesaid expectation of early hearing of Section 17 of the Act, 2002, petition stands disposed of.