Allahabad High Court
WRIC/36525/2026 of AAS MOHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 5 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36525 of 2026 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sachin Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 and Ms. Subhra Singh, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36525 of 2026
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sachin Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 and Ms. Subhra Singh, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18.07.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') and the notice dated 20.07.2024. The proceedings under Section 14 of the Act are processual in nature and, therefore, not justiciable. The remedy of the petitioners is to challenge the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act, which is by way of an application under Section 17 of the said Act. The notice under Section 13(4) of the Act in this case was issued on 09.10.2024.
3. It is open to the petitioners to avail their remedies against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act in the manner, advised. So far as the present petition is concerned, it is clearly not maintainable.
4. On 14.09.2026, the petitioners were granted indulgence with the consent of the Bank to deposit 25% of the admitted amount whereafter some equitable order was perhaps in contemplation of the Court. The petitioners have not deposited any sum of money in compliance with the order dated 14.09.2026. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sachin Mishra Aas Mohammad And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. No case for interference is, therefore, made out. This petition is dismissed. October 6, 2026 gp WRIC No. 36525 of 2026 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad