Vimal Kashyap and others v. Union of India and others)

1. Heard Shri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Union of India, Shri Shivansh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2- Authorized Officer, Edelwiess Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, and Shri Ram Kuma Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P representing respondent no.3-Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of Indian, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated

10.10.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (in short "DRT") that S.A No. 405 of 2025 disposing of the interim relief application filed by the petitioners in the aforesaid Securitization Application (in short "S.A") in terms of the earlier order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Tribunal, which order has already been set aside by means of a judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Petition under Article 227 No. 3953 of 2025 (Vimal Kashyap and others VS. Union of India and others).

3. Initially, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid securitization application before the DRT on 19.04.2025. The petitioners' application for interim relief was rejected by the Tribunal by means of an order dated

02.05.2025. The petitioners challenged the validity of the order dated 2 A227 No. 6784 of 2025

02.05.2025 by filing petition under Article 227 No. 2946 of 2025, which was disposed of by means of an order dated 16.05.2025 after recording that a perusal of the order reveals total non-application of mind and prima facie gives as impression that there is a lack of training of the Member manning the office at DRT. This Court found the order dated 02.05.2025 to be short of any valid discision making process and without any application of mind, quashed the same and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the case pleaded by the petitioner and the defense that may be taken by the respondents.

4. The DRT passed a fresh order on 17.06.2025 wherein, it noted that, it has been observed by the Hight Court that the order dated 02.05.2025 has been passed without application of mind hence, the presiding officer was taking every caution to discuss all the points raised.

5. The DRT took into consideration the objection filed by the respondent- petitioner to the effect that the S.A was time barred, upheld the objection and held the S.A to be time barred. The DRT further proceeded to record objection of the respondents that inspite of issuance of demand notice, the borrower had failed to repay the amount.

6. The Tribunal has recorded the contention of the petitioner-applicant that as per the tracking report, the item was delivered at Nirala Nagar, SO and not to the addressee. The Tribunal rejected the contention and recorded that Nirala Nagar SO is sub-office and the tracking report shows that it has been delivered and item delivery is confirmed.

7. The order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the DRT was assailed by the petitioners by filing another petition under Article 227 No. 3953 of 2025, which was allowed by means of a detailed judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 whereby the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Tribunal was set aside and it was held that the S.A filed by the petitioners was not time barred. This Court remanded the matter to DRT with a direction to pass orders afresh after considering the grievance of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law.

8. The Court further provided that till disposal of the interim application 3 A227 No. 6784 of 2025 filed in the S.A, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard the title and possession of the property in question.

9. It is after remand made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 06.08.2025 that the DRT had passed the impugned order dated

10.10.2025. The DRT has referred to the judgment of this Court wherein it has been observed that after finding that the S.A was barred by limitation, DRT should not have proceeded to make any observation with regard to action of the respondents against which the petitioners were aggrieved. In this regard, the presiding officer of the DRT has recorded in the impugned order that he was under influence of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7524 of 2012, wherein it was observed that since one object of the legislature being speedy disposal within time frame, there is no warrant for entertaining preliminary objection raised by either of the parties The DRT has also relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court, wherein it has been held that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction and to entertain and decide the preliminary issues unless the same touch upon the issue of jurisdiction.

10. Although, there was no need to hold the S.A within limitation after this Court has already held so in the judgment dated 06.08.2025, the DRT held that the S.A was filed within time. Regarding rest of the observations made in the order dated 17.06.2025, which has already been set aside, the Tribunal held that this Court has only set aside its findings regarding S.A being time barred and has not set aside the observation made on the merits of the case and, therefore, it reiterated the same.

11. In the order dated 06.08.2025 pased by this Court it is specifically recorded that the matter was remanded to the DRT to pass order afresh after considering the grievance of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law. Inspite of this specific direction, no fresh consideration has been undertaken by the DRT, which prima facie vitiates the order dated

10.10.2025.

12. Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of Indian has vehemently passed the writ petition and has advanced submissions in the case, although no relief has been claimed in either S.A or this petition 4 A227 No. 6784 of 2025 which is directed against the Union of India.

13. As the Union of India has put in appearance before this Court and has rendered active participation in the proceedings, this Court found it appropriate to put a question to the learned counsel for the Union of India that when this Court had made an observation in the order dated

16.05.2025 passed in petition under Article 227 No. 2946 of 2025 that the order passed by the presiding officer of the Tribunal revealed total non- application of mind and gave an impression of lack of training of the Member manning the office at DRT, why is the Union of India permitting such an officer to continue to perfrom the duty of the presiding officer of the DRT upon which Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh stated that the Ministry has already sent a letter on 23.04.2025 to the National Judicial Academic, Bhopal. A copy of the letter dated 23.04.2025 has been placed by Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh before this Court which is a letter written by under Secretary to the Government of India to the Registrar, Administration, National Judicial Academic in Bhopal requesting to organize national seminar for presiding officers of DRT wherein it is mentioned that the National Judicial Academic had conducted national seminars for presiding officer of DRT in December, 2017, March, 2023 and recently in March, 2025 wherein the presiding officer of DRT participated and expressed satisfaction. The letter requests for holding similar seminar for the presiding officers of the DRT in the current financial year. Now a training has been scheduled for the current Presding officers of DRT, Lucknow.

14. The matter requries detailed consideration.

15. Opposite parties may file counter affidavit within a perid of four weeks. Rejoinder affidviat, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafther.

16. List this case in the week commening 12.01.2026.

17. Keeping in view the observations made in this order regarding propriety of the order passed by the Tribunal, it appears to be necessary to prevent the ends of justice that the further proceedings of S.A No. 405 of 2025 be kept in abeyance and the protection granted by this Court in the 5 A227 No. 6784 of 2025 order dated 06.08.2025 passed in petition under Article 227 No.3953 of 2025, that the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to t he title and possession of the property in question, be continued till the date of listing. November 28, 2025 Preeti (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

1. Heard Shri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Union of India, Shri Shivansh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2- Authorized Officer, Edelwiess Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, and Shri Ram Kuma Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P representing respondent no.3-Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of Indian, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated

10.10.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (in short "DRT") that S.A No. 405 of 2025 disposing of the interim relief application filed by the petitioners in the aforesaid Securitization Application (in short "S.A") in terms of the earlier order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Tribunal, which order has already been set aside by means of a judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Petition under Article 227 No. 3953 of 2025 (Vimal Kashyap and others VS. Union of India and others).

3. Initially, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid securitization application before the DRT on 19.04.2025. The petitioners' application for interim relief was rejected by the Tribunal by means of an order dated

02.05.2025. The petitioners challenged the validity of the order dated 2 A227 No. 6784 of 2025

02.05.2025 by filing petition under Article 227 No. 2946 of 2025, which was disposed of by means of an order dated 16.05.2025 after recording that a perusal of the order reveals total non-application of mind and prima facie gives as impression that there is a lack of training of the Member manning the office at DRT. This Court found the order dated 02.05.2025 to be short of any valid discision making process and without any application of mind, quashed the same and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the case pleaded by the petitioner and the defense that may be taken by the respondents.

4. The DRT passed a fresh order on 17.06.2025 wherein, it noted that, it has been observed by the Hight Court that the order dated 02.05.2025 has been passed without application of mind hence, the presiding officer was taking every caution to discuss all the points raised.

5. The DRT took into consideration the objection filed by the respondent- petitioner to the effect that the S.A was time barred, upheld the objection and held the S.A to be time barred. The DRT further proceeded to record objection of the respondents that inspite of issuance of demand notice, the borrower had failed to repay the amount.

6. The Tribunal has recorded the contention of the petitioner-applicant that as per the tracking report, the item was delivered at Nirala Nagar, SO and not to the addressee. The Tribunal rejected the contention and recorded that Nirala Nagar SO is sub-office and the tracking report shows that it has been delivered and item delivery is confirmed.

7. The order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the DRT was assailed by the petitioners by filing another petition under Article 227 No. 3953 of 2025, which was allowed by means of a detailed judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 whereby the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Tribunal was set aside and it was held that the S.A filed by the petitioners was not time barred. This Court remanded the matter to DRT with a direction to pass orders afresh after considering the grievance of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law.

8. The Court further provided that till disposal of the interim application 3 A227 No. 6784 of 2025 filed in the S.A, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard the title and possession of the property in question.

9. It is after remand made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 06.08.2025 that the DRT had passed the impugned order dated

10.10.2025. The DRT has referred to the judgment of this Court wherein it has been observed that after finding that the S.A was barred by limitation, DRT should not have proceeded to make any observation with regard to action of the respondents against which the petitioners were aggrieved. In this regard, the presiding officer of the DRT has recorded in the impugned order that he was under influence of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7524 of 2012, wherein it was observed that since one object of the legislature being speedy disposal within time frame, there is no warrant for entertaining preliminary objection raised by either of the parties The DRT has also relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court, wherein it has been held that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction and to entertain and decide the preliminary issues unless the same touch upon the issue of jurisdiction.

10. Although, there was no need to hold the S.A within limitation after this Court has already held so in the judgment dated 06.08.2025, the DRT held that the S.A was filed within time. Regarding rest of the observations made in the order dated 17.06.2025, which has already been set aside, the Tribunal held that this Court has only set aside its findings regarding S.A being time barred and has not set aside the observation made on the merits of the case and, therefore, it reiterated the same.

11. In the order dated 06.08.2025 pased by this Court it is specifically recorded that the matter was remanded to the DRT to pass order afresh after considering the grievance of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law. Inspite of this specific direction, no fresh consideration has been undertaken by the DRT, which prima facie vitiates the order dated

10.10.2025.

12. Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of Indian has vehemently passed the writ petition and has advanced submissions in the case, although no relief has been claimed in either S.A or this petition 4 A227 No. 6784 of 2025 which is directed against the Union of India.

13. As the Union of India has put in appearance before this Court and has rendered active participation in the proceedings, this Court found it appropriate to put a question to the learned counsel for the Union of India that when this Court had made an observation in the order dated

16.05.2025 passed in petition under Article 227 No. 2946 of 2025 that the order passed by the presiding officer of the Tribunal revealed total non- application of mind and gave an impression of lack of training of the Member manning the office at DRT, why is the Union of India permitting such an officer to continue to perfrom the duty of the presiding officer of the DRT upon which Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh stated that the Ministry has already sent a letter on 23.04.2025 to the National Judicial Academic, Bhopal. A copy of the letter dated 23.04.2025 has been placed by Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh before this Court which is a letter written by under Secretary to the Government of India to the Registrar, Administration, National Judicial Academic in Bhopal requesting to organize national seminar for presiding officers of DRT wherein it is mentioned that the National Judicial Academic had conducted national seminars for presiding officer of DRT in December, 2017, March, 2023 and recently in March, 2025 wherein the presiding officer of DRT participated and expressed satisfaction. The letter requests for holding similar seminar for the presiding officers of the DRT in the current financial year. Now a training has been scheduled for the current Presding officers of DRT, Lucknow.

14. The matter requries detailed consideration.

15. Opposite parties may file counter affidavit within a perid of four weeks. Rejoinder affidviat, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafther.

16. List this case in the week commening 12.01.2026.

17. Keeping in view the observations made in this order regarding propriety of the order passed by the Tribunal, it appears to be necessary to prevent the ends of justice that the further proceedings of S.A No. 405 of 2025 be kept in abeyance and the protection granted by this Court in the 5 A227 No. 6784 of 2025 order dated 06.08.2025 passed in petition under Article 227 No.3953 of 2025, that the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to t he title and possession of the property in question, be continued till the date of listing. November 28, 2025 Preeti (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)