# M/s Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko v. M/s Arora Auto Center Lko

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 335
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-24
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 420 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-waheguru-projects-pvt-ltd-lko-v-m-s-arora-auto-center-lko-54505
- **Pages:** 18

## Text

_Characters 0–39,863 of 63,616. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39863 for what follows._

4 All. M/s Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Vs. M/s Arora Auto Center Lko.
335
perversity. The learned Single Judge has not missed the woods for the tree in deciding the right of
the Appellant, while taking a detailed analysis of the relevant Regulations applicable for
compassionate appointment. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Industrial
Area Development Authority & Ors. V/s M/s SCOPE Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.; reported as 2026
INSC 89; vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2026 has held as follows:

 13. We must also bear in mind the nature and extent of jurisdiction that an intra-court
appellate Bench of a high court exercise. Such appellate jurisdiction is conferred either under the
Letters Patent or by the relevant statutory provisions. It is pertinent to note that both - Single
Bench and Division Bench - exercise the same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
our view, the exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction is warranted only where the judgment or
order under challenge is demonstrably erroneous or suffers from perversity. Such jurisdiction
ought not to be invoked merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts,
particularly where the view adopted by the Single Judge is a plausible and reasonable one. In other
words, an intra-court appellate Bench ought not to substitute its own view, merely because such
Bench considers its view to be better than the one taken by the Single Bench; so long as the view
taken by the Single Bench is a plausible one, interference should stay at a distance.

36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment dated 18th of September, 2025 of the
learned Single Judge is upheld and consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.

37. There shall be no order(s) as to cost.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 335
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Special Appeal No. 420 of 2025
Along with
Other Connected Cases

M/s Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko. ...Appellant
Versus
M/s Arora Auto Center Lko. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(1) Maintainability of writ petition before the High Court, when the Securitization application in respect of the
same issues was filed and pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
(2) Maintainability of writ petition on the matter arisen between two private parties.
(3) Maintainability of writ petition before the Single Judge Bench of the High Court in absence of challenge of
any order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
(4) Maintainability of Special Appeal against an interim order passed in writ petition.
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
(A) Practice and procedure - Writ - Maintainability - Securitization application was filed before
the Debt Recovery Tribunal - In respect of the same matter, writ petition was also filed and got
an interim order for restoration of possession of the secured asset and continuity of business
from the Single Judge Bench - Interim order was challenged in Special Appeal - In writ petition,
the Stamp Reporter made objection that the matter is cognizable by the Division Bench, but the
counsel made an endorsement that matter related with Single Judge Bench and he will explain
the same before the Court - Permissibility - As no order of DRT was challenged, the
maintainability of writ petition before Single Judge Bench felt into consideration: (E-1)
Held: The writ petition was not cognizable by a Single Judge Bench - As learned Counsel for the petitioner
was present in Court we asked him to kindly demonstrate as to how the writ petitions were maintainable
before the learned Single Judge Bench but he was completely at sea and could not offer any explanation what
to say of an acceptable one. We deprecate such practice of making endorsements in response to the
deficiency pointed out by the Reporting Section. [Para 9 and 35]
Further held: All issues pertaining to the recovery/securitization proceedings initiated by the financial
institution/secured creditor... are pending consideration before the DRT/DRAT in various securitization
applications etc., therefore, the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the
respondents-petitioners were apparently not maintainable. [Para 30]
(B) Constitutional law - Writ - Maintainability - Dispute arose between two private parties -
Relief sought was against the private parties - Maintainability of writ petition felt into
consideration: (E-1)
Held: While filing the writ petition, no order passed by the DRT was challenged, therefore, apparently, the
writ petition was not maintainable as the subject matter in issue was the same as was already pending before
the DRT, Lucknow and it was relating to a dispute between private parties, for this reason also the writ
petitions were/are not maintainable. [Para 21]
Further held: Essentially the relief sought in the writ petition is against a private financial institution-asset
reconstruction company, therefore, the writ petition, in view of the pronouncement of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir... is not maintainable for this reason also.
[Para 40]
(C) Practice and procedure - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Ch. VIII, Rule 5 - Special
Appeal - Maintainability against an interim order passed in writ petition - Interim order was
amount to granting final relief - Scope of Special Appeal to interfere with felt into consideration:
(E-1)
Held: As the learned Single Judge did not have jurisdiction to hear such a writ petition and as by the said
impugned order veritably the proceedings pending before the DRT, Lucknow in various Securitization
Applications (S.A.) have been preempted and a final relief of sorts has been ordered/granted by the impugned
order, therefore, the appeals are maintainable. [Para 55]

Case Law Cited
Special Appeal No. 282 of 2025, Lucknow Development Authority vs. Mohammad Zaimul Islam and Another;
Writ C No. 2119 of 2023, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Union of India and Others decided on
07.04.2023; Writ C No. 12822 of 2025, M/S Education Academy and Others vs. District Magistrate District
Sitapur and Others decided on 28.12.2025; Special Appeal No. 48 of 2026, S.B.I. Stressed Assets Recovery
Branch and Another vs. M/s G.S.M. Bricks and Tiles and Others decided on 23.02.2026; Bombay Metropolitan
Region Development Authority vs. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 642; Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Ltd.,
2010 11 SCC 622; Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345; State Bank of
Travancore vs. Mathew KC, (2018) 3 SCC 85; Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal vs. Central Bank of India,
(2019) 9 SCC 94; R.V. Bhupal Prasad vs. State of A.P., (1995) 5 SCC 698; Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs.
Rama Chandrashekhar Vaidya, (2014) 1 SCC 657 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226 and Article 227; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Ss. 14, 17(1), 17(3) and 17(4); Petroleum Rules, 2002.
4 All. M/s Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Vs. M/s Arora Auto Center Lko.
337
List of Keywords
Interim order, Securitization application, Restoration of possession, Secured asset, Maintainability, Jurisdiction,
Single Judge Bench, Division Bench, Cognizable, Grossly erred, Loan, Same relief, Dispute between private
parties, Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), Moratorium, Public Announcement, Physical possession,
Financial institution, Secured Creditor, Cause of action, Remedy, Sale certificate, Confirmation of Sale,
Different context, Statutory remedy, Recovery proceeding, Tenant, Lease, Borrower, Guarantor, Tenant in
sufferance, Legal right, Trespassers, Lawful title, Perpetual lease, Adducing of evidence, Coercive action, De
hors, Obligation, Temporary structures, Mortgage deed, Legal representative.

Case Arising From
An interim order dated 28.11.2025 passed in Writ C No. 11302 of 2025, M/s Arora Auto Center & Others vs.
State of U.P. & Others.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Sudeep Seth (Sr. Adv.), Pushkar Srivastava, Satendra Kumar Rai, L.P. Mishra,
Prashant Kumar, Deepanshu Das, Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Sunil Kumar Chaudhary.
Advs. for the Respondents: Jaideep Narayan Mathur (Sr. Adv.), Dhruv Mathur (Sr. Adv.), Ashish
Chaturvedi, Ms. Aishvarya Mathur, Anurag Srivastava, Nishant Shukla (ACSC), Puskar Srivastava.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pushkar Srivastava, Shri
Satendra Kumar Rai, Sri L.P. Mishra along with Sri Prashant Kumar, Sri Deepanshu Das & Sri
Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Jaideep Narayan
Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish Chaturvedi, appearing on behalf of
Respondent-BPCL, Shri Dhruv Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aishvarya
Mathur for the respondent-M/s Arora Auto Centre, Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant-Smt. Krishna Devi seeking impleadment in Special Appeal No.422 of 2025 and Sri
Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the Staterespondents.

2. This is a bunch of special appeals wherein Special Appeal No.420 of 2025 by M/s
Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko. and Special Appeal No.424 of 2025 by Phoenix Arc Private
Limited have been filed against the interim order dated 28.11.2025 passed in Writ C No.11302 of
2025 (M/s Arora Auto Center & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others).

3. Special Appeal No.421 of 2025 by M/s Waheguru Projects Private Limited and Special
Appeal No.422 of 2025 by Phoenix Arc Private Limited have been filed against the interim order
dated 28.11.2025 passed in Writ C No.11298 of 2025 (BPCL vs. State of U.P. & Others).

4. Special Appeals No.422 of 2025 and 424 of 2025 have been filed by the financial
institution/secured creditor whereas Special Appeals No.420 of 2025 and 421 of 2025 have been
filed by the auction purchaser.

5. By means of the interim orders dated 28.11.2025, learned Single Judge exercising the
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, during pendency of securitization application
in respect of the same matter, has ordered for restoration of possession of the secured asset namely
immovable property bearing Khasra No.131 admeasuring 32879 square feet situated at Shekhpur
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kasaila, Faizabad Road, Lucknow to the respondent-petitioner i.e Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BPCL') and its sub-lessee M/S Arora Auto Center, Lucknow
within 24 hours after its possession had been taken by the Bank in pursuance to order under Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2002') with a further
observation/direction that the said respondent-petitioner shall be entitled to continue their business
of retail/sale of petroleum products from the property in question.

6. The first and foremost question which falls for consideration is regarding the very
maintainability of the aforesaid petitions before the learned Single Judge as no order of the DRT,
Lucknow was challenged before the Writ Court. In the absence of challenge to any order of the
DRT or any appellate order, a writ petition, assuming that it was otherwise maintainable, would not
lie before a learned Single Judge Bench but would lie before a Division Bench in view of the orders
of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 18.09.1981 which has been taken into consideration by a
Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.282 of 2025 (Lucknow Development
Authority vs. Mohammad Zaimul Islam and Another).

7. Even if, any order of the DRT was to be challenged, ordinarily a writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India would be filed, regarding which, the learned Single Judge who has
passed the impugned interim order did not have jurisdiction on the given day as per the roaster
determined by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. In fact, learned Single Judge has passed the
impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ
petition.

8. As original records of the aforesaid two writ petitions were tagged with these appeals, we
have perused the same and found that the Reporting Section of this Court while passing the writ
petitions required a bench copy to be filed by the petitioner as the matter was cognizable before a
Division Bench and not a Single Judge Bench but the Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ
C No.11302 of 2025 filed by the respondent M/S Arora Auto Center, Lucknow and its partner,
made an endorsement-'matter related with Single Bench, Bench copy are not required explained
before Hon'ble Court, if required' and in Writ C No.11298 of 2025 the noting made by the learned
Counsel for the respondents-petitioners was-'Bench copy not required'.

9. As learned Counsel for the petitioner was present in Court we asked him to kindly
demonstrate as to how the writ petitions were maintainable before the learned Single Judge Bench
but he was completely at sea and could not offer any explanation what to say of an acceptable one.
We deprecate such practice of making endorsements in response to the deficiency pointed out by
the Reporting Section as noted hereinabove.

10. We further provide, as and when the Reporting Section finds that the matter is cognizable
by a particular bench, whether a Single Judge Bench or a Division Bench in terms of the rules of
the Court and/or order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, then, irrespective of the noting made by learned
Counsel, the Reporting/Listing Section should send the matter for consideration before the Bench
which according to the Reporting/Listing Section has jurisdiction to hear the matter and it is before
such bench that the Counsel appearing for the petitioner or the other side can raise a plea that the
matter was cognizable by another bench but, there is no way that on mere asking or noting of the
4 All. M/s Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Vs. M/s Arora Auto Center Lko.
339
learned Counsel for the petitioner, as has happened in this case, the Reporting/Listing Section
should list the matter before a Bench which according to it did not have the jurisdiction in the
matter. Jurisdiction of a Bench cannot be decided by noting of a learned Counsel. It has to be
reported by the Reporting/Listing Section in terms of the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice etc., as
referred hereinabove and the matter has to be listed accordingly.

11. Faced with this situation, Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents-petitioners submitted that he does not wish to join issue as regards jurisdiction of the
learned Single Judge to hear the writ petitions and is willing to argue the writ petitions before this
very Division Bench and accordingly, he proceeded to address the Court on the writ petitions also,
in addition to the special appeals, that is why we heard and reserved our judgment on 13.03.2026 in
respect of all the special appeals and both the writ petitions referred hereinabove. We may in this
context quote the relevant part of our order dated 13.03.2026 passed in these appeals which reads
as under:-

"3. We had tagged the writ petitions bearing Writ C No.11298 of 2025 and Writ C
No.11302 of 2025 along with the appeals vide our order dated 12.02.2026. It is informed that
thereafter some application for amendment was filed in the said writ petitions which were taken up
before the learned Single Judge and which was allowed allegedly without any opportunity to the
appellants before us to object the same and without the records of writ petition being available
before the learned Single Judge. Certain objections have been raised with regard to allowing of the
said amendment application. We do not express any opinion at this stage as we propose to deal
with this aspect, if required, in our final order/ judgment. Sri Jaideep Narayan Mathur, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-petitioners submitted that the writ petitions filed by
the respondents-petitioners be also heard along with these appeal and the same be decided as
records of the writ petitions are already tagged with the appeals. With the consent of the parties,
not only special appeals arising out of Writ C No.11298 of 2025 and Writ C No.11302 of 2025 but
also the writ petitions have been heard, meaning thereby, now the aforesaid writ petitions shall not
be listed before the learned Single Judge for any purpose, as, after hearing the parties, we are
reserving our judgment not only in the appeals but also the writ petitions.

4. Judgment reserved.

5. The interim order already in operation in appeals shall continue to operate till delivery
of judgment."

12. We have perused the interim order dated 28.11.2025 passed by learned Single Judge
Bench as impugned in these special appeals and find that it had grossly erred in entertaining the
said writ petitions not only for the reasons mentioned hereinabove but also otherwise, as, for the
same reliefs as prayed in the writ petitions, securitization applications are pending before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT, Lucknow') at the behest of the
respondents-petitioners.

13. In this context, we may now consider the writ petitions and in that context the
securitization applications pending before the DRT at Lucknow as also the interim order passed by
the Writ Court.
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Writ C No.11298 of 2025 has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing entire the entire
securitization Proceedings initiated on the behest of predecessor of the Asset Reconstruction
Company i.e. PHOENIX ARC Private Limited under the provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002
including the Notice Under section 13 (2) dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure No.6), Notice Under section
13 (4) dated 07.10.2023 (Annexure No.9), Sale Notice dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure No. 12) as well
the Auction and sale of the the property admeasuring 32,879 Sq. Ft., Khasra No. 131, situated at
Sheikhpura, Kasaila at Faizabad Road, Lucknow after declaring the entire securitization
Proceedings as viod ab initio.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the pre-possession
notice dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure No.19) issued under the signatures of Additional City
Magistrate, IV Lucknow to Late Rani Devi for delivering the possession of the property after
declaring the issuance of the Notice as illegal and viod ab initio.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated
18.08.2025 (Annexure No.17) passed by Additional District Magistrate (T-G, Lucknow) under
section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against dead persons i.e Late Rani Devi and Late Krishna
Devi.

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/notice
dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure No.21) issued by asset reconstruction company i.e. PHOENIX ARC
Private Limited to the petitioner.

v. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party
to restore back the possession of the Plot admeasuring 32879 Sq. Ft situated at Khasra No. 131 at
Shekhpur Khasaila at Faizabad Road Lucknow along with all its assets/immovable properties
within the time frame as may deem fit a proper by this Hon'ble Court.

vi. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed; and

vii. To award the cost of the writ petition to the Petitioner against the Opposite Parties."

15. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by BPCL which claims to have a lease in its
favour in respect of the secured asset. BPCL has filed a Securitization Application bearing S.A.
No.909 of 2023 before the DRT, Lucknow under Section 17(1) of the Act, 2002 seeking the
following reliefs:-

"(I) To set aside/quashed the entire securitization Proceedings initiated by the
Respondent No.1, under the provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002 as far as it relates to the applicant.

(II) To declare the possession notice dated 07.10.2023 issued under Section 13(4) of
SARFAESI Act read with rule 8(1) of the security interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and the
notices issued under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act involving the assets and structures of the
applicant as invalid and illegal.

(III) Pass appropriate order/direction whereby directing the respondent No. 1 through its
authorized officer/ agents not to take coercive measures against the applicant in relation to the
property of the applicant mentioned in the Notice dated 07.10.2023 issued under Section 13(4) of
SARFAESI Act read with rule 8(1) of the security interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 till the
disposal of the securitization application.
4 All. M/s Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Vs. M/s Arora Auto Center Lko.
341

(IV) To declare the applicant herein as a bonafide tenant in respect of the leasehold
property.

(V) To award cost of the present proceeding in favour of the applicant and against the
Respondent.

(VI) To grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case."

16. The aforesaid S.A. was filed by BPCL arraying Piramal Capital and Housing Finance
Limited, the then secured creditor, Smt. Rani Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi, the guarantors of the
loan amount. The borrower being Andes Town Planners Private Limited against which there was
moratorium order in proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on account of
which the secured creditor could not proceed against the borrower but could do so against the
guarantors.

17. On a conjoint reading of the relief clause in S.A. No.909 of 2023 filed by BPCL and the
writ petition filed by it, it is apparent that the reliefs were substantially similar and related to the
measures/securitization proceedings initiated by the Bank under the Act, 2002 in respect of the
same secured asset. The order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate,
Lucknow under Section 14 of the Act, 2002, the pre-possession notice dated 09.10.2025 in this
regard and the consequential notice dated 31.10.2025 were also in the context of the same subject
matter which was pending consideration before DRT, Lucknow. As such, veritably, the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by BPCL seeking essentially the same
reliefs as has already been sought before the DRT, Lucknow in S.A. No.909 of 2023. Moreover,
legal position is settled that an order passed under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 is amenable to
challenge under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 or a
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

18. Further, BPCL filed another securitization application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002
bearing S.A. No.487 of 2024 arraying therein not only Piramal Capital and Housing Finance
Limited which was already a party in the earlier securitization application bearing S.A. No.909 of
2023 but also arraying Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited to which the loan had been
assigned by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, and M/S Andes Town Planners Private
Limited alongwith the guarantors referred hereinabove, who were already party in the earlier
proceedings. The relief prayed for in S.A. No.487 of 2024 by BPCL is as under:-

"(I) To set aside/quashed the entire securitization Proceedings initiated by the
Respondent No.1, under the provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002 as far as it relates to the applicant.

(II) Pass appropriate order/direction whereby directing the respondent bank through its
authorized officer/agents not to take coercive measures against the applicant in relation to the
property of the applicant mentioned in the Sale notice dated 15.06.2024 issued under Section 13(4)
of SARFAESI Act read with rule 8(6) of the security interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 till the
disposal of the securitization application.

(III) To declare the applicant herein as a bonafide tenant in respect of the leasehold
property.
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(IV) To award cost of the present proceeding in favour of the applicant and against the
Respondent.

(V) To grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case."

19. As would be evident on a conjoint reading of the relief clause in S.A. No.487 of 2024 with
the earlier securitization application bearing S.A. No.909 of 2023 and the pleadings therein which
are on record, not only the cause of action and subject matter in issue was same but the relief clause
was also same and the only difference was addition of new defendants/respondents in the
proceedings. We do not say much except that it is for the DRT, Lucknow to see as to how this
second securitization application was maintainable.

20. During pendency of securitization application bearing S.A. No.487 of 2024 an order
passed on 18.08.2025 by the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow under Section 14 of the Act,
2002, therefore, this order was also challenged by means of an amendment, which was allowed,
therefore, the challenge to Section 14 of the Act, 2002 order dated 18.08.2025 is also pending
before the DRT, Lucknow in the aforesaid securitization application, thus, for substantially the
same relief as was sought in Writ C No.11298 of 2025, two securitization applications were already
pending at the behest of BPCL before the DRT, Lucknow as already stated.

21. While filing the writ petition, no order passed by the DRT was challenged, therefore,
apparently, the writ petition was not maintainable as the subject matter in issue was the same as
was already pending before the DRT, Lucknow and it was relating to a dispute between private
parties, for this reason also the writ petitions were/are not maintianable.

22. Not only this, the sub-lessee of BPCL i.e. M/S Arora Auto Center, Lucknow filed a
securitization application bearing S.A. No.958 of 2023 before the DRT, Lucknow seeking the
following reliefs:-

"(a) To quash the possession notice dated 07.10.2023 purported to be issued under
Section-13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of Pist of Land admeasuring 32,879 sq. ft. Khasra No. 131,
situated at Shikhpur Kasaila, at Faizabad Road, Lucknow alongwith entire present and future
structure thereon, which is actual physical possession of the applicants under the dealer ship
agreement since the year 1972 and the said a dealership agreement lastly renewed on 15.07.2020
owned by the applicants no. 4 morefully described in para 1 of this application).

(b) To set aside the proceedings initiated by the respondent no 1 under the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of
Plot of Land admeasuring 32,879 sq. ft. Khasra No. 131, situated at Shikhpur Kasaila, at Faizabad
Road, Lucknow alongwith entire present and future structure thereon morefully described in para 1
of this application).

(c) Such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case so as to protect and safeguard the interest of the applicants may also be
passed in the interest of justice."
4 All. M/s Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Vs. M/s Arora Auto Center Lko.
343

23. The aforesaid securitization application was disposed of on 16.07.2024 by the DRT,
Lucknow taking note of an order dated 02.03.2023 passed by National Company Law Tribunal,
New Delhi in IB No.317/ND/2022 whereby Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) had been
appointed and a moratorium and public announcement had been ordered by NCLT, New Delhi.

24. Being aggrieved by the said order M/S Arora Auto Center, Lucknow, the sub-lessee has
already preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, 2002 before Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Allahabad impleading the guarantors, which is still pending and was also pending on the
date of filing of the writ petition by it.

25. M/S Arora Auto Center, Lucknow has also preferred an application under Section 16(5) of
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for being impleadment as respondent in the proceedings
before National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi after dismissal of its S.A. on 16.07.2024.

26. After passing of the order of possession under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 dated
18.08.2025 by Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow, M/S Arora Auto Centre, Lucknow filed
another securitization application bearing S.A. No.1067 of 2025 challenging the said order dated
18.08.2025, the sale notice dated 23.07.2025 and the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction
purchaser M/S Waheguru Projects Private Limited, Lucknow and also praying that the bank should
not take physical possession.

27. In S.A. No.1067 of 2025 an interim relief application was filed by M/S Arora Auto Center,
Lucknow that till disposal of the said S.A., respondent may not take physical possession of the
property in pursuance to the order passed by Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow and also not
to issue sale certificate. This application was rejected on 01.11.2025 on the ground that the
applicant was a sub-lessee of BPCL and has got only right through the latter and not independent of
it whose two securitization applications were already pending for the same reliefs.

28. We are not aware as to whether the order of DRT dated 01.11.2025 has been challenged by
M/S Arora Auto Center, Lucknow in appeal but it was certainly not challenged before the Writ
Court out of which the special appeal bearing Special Appeal No.422 of 2025 arises.

29. In spite of the facts noticed above, the sub-lessee M/S Arora Auto Center filed a writ
petition bearing Writ C No.11302 of 2025 seeking the following reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notice under
Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 31.05.2023 and declaring it to be void ab initio to the
extent that it relates to Smt. Krishna Devi and Late Smt. Rani Devi as contained in Annexure No. 1
to this writ petition.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed
under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 07.10.2023 and declaring it to be void ab initio
to the extent that it relates to Smt. Krishna Devi and Late Smt. Rani Devi as contained in Annexure
No. 4 to this writ petition.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed
under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 18.08.2025 passed by Additional District
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate (T-G, Lucknow) under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and declaring it to be
void ab initio to the extent that it relates to Smt. Krishna Devi and Late Smt. Rani Devi as
contained in Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition.

IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Sale Notice
dated 15.06.2024 and declaring it to be void ab initio pertaining to the property situated at Khasra
no. 131, Shekhpur Kaisala, Faizabad Road, Lucknow Devi as contained in Annexure No. 6 to this
writ petition.

V. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Auction notice
dated 23.07.2025 and declaring it to be void ab initio pertaining to the property situated at Khasra
no. 131, Shekhpur Kaisala, Faizabad Road, Lucknow Devi as contained in Annexure No. 10 to this
writ petition.

VI. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order/notice
dated 31.10.2025 issued by asset reconstruction company i.e. Phoenix Arc Private Limited to the
petitioner as contained in Annexure No. 17 to this writ petition.

VII. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the preposession notice dated 09.10.2025 passed by Additional District Magistrate (T-G, Lucknow) and
and declaring it to be void ab initio as contained in Annexure No. 23 to this writ petition

VIII. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the entire
proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and declaring it to be void ab initio to the extent that it
relates to Late Smt. Krishna Devi and Late Smt. Rani Devi.

IX. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to direct the Respondent to
restore the possession of the petitioner over the property in question for the purposes of running its
business.

X. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to absolve the petitioners of
any liability in case there is any accident as a result of the leakage or explosion of hazardous
materials which have been illegally possessed by the respondents.

XI. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to hold liable the
respondents concerned who have illegally taken forcible possession of the said property.

XII. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to restrain the
Respondent no. 5 from disposing off the petroleum products and other hazardous material forcibly
taken from the said property.

XIII. Grant such other/further relief, as may be deemed just and appropriate in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

XIV. Award costs in favour of the petitioners."

30. From what has been discussed hereinabove, it is evident that all issues pertaining to the
recovery/securitization proceedings initiated by the financial institution/secured creditor, which
was initially Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited which assigned the loan to Piramal
Capital and Housing Finance Limited which in turn assigned it to Omkara Assets Reconstruction
Private Limited and ultimately the loan came to be assigned to Phoenix Arc Private Limited which
is one of the appellants before us, are pending consideration before the DRT/DRAT in various
securitization applications etc., therefore, the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the respondents-petitioners were apparently not maintainable.
4 All. M/s Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Vs. M/s Arora Auto Center Lko.
345

31. BPCL claims itself to be the lessee of the secured asset and M/S Arora Auto Center,
Lucknow is sub-lessee which is running a petrol pump on the said land.

32. Various submissions have been made by Shri J.N. Mathur on the merits of the issues
involved which are already pending consideration before the DRT, Lucknow such as initiation of
the proceedings illegally which were void, BPCL being kept in dark about the recovery
proceedings, the mortgage deed said to have been executed by the guarantors being forged,
fabricated and void ab-initio and that proceedings having been held against dead persons, however,
all these issues are pending consideration before the DRT, Lucknow and we are only concerned
with the question as to whether the two writ petitions were/are maintainable before the Writ Court
during pendency of the proceedings before the DRT, Lucknow. The writ petitions were apparently
not maintainable.

33. In fact, we have gone through the contents of the writ petitions and do not find any cause
of action for the said petitions to have been filed, once the remedy under Section 17 of the Act,
2002 had already been availed by the respondents-petitioners by filing securitization applications
under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 which are still pending. The writ petition of BPCL bearing Writ
C No.11298 of 2025 was filed on 10.11.2025 after not only auction sale having been held by the
financial institution in which M/S Waheguru Projects Private Limited, Lucknow was the highest
bidder but the sale certificate had also been issued after confirmation of sale and after physical
possession had also been handed over to the auction purchaser on 27.10.2025.

34. As already stated the writ petition was filed by BPCL for substantially the same relief
regarding which S.A.s were already pending before DRT, Lucknow and in that writ petition, the
learned Single Judge passed the impugned interim order for restoring the possession back as
already referred hereinabove, which he could not have done.

35. Not only the writ petition was not cognizable by a Single Judge Bench but, even
otherwise, the writ petitions were/are not maintainable. The legal position in this regard is very well
settled by a catena of decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court. We may in this
regard refer to Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Writ C No.2119 of 2023;
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Union of India and Others, dated 07.04.2023;
Writ C No.12822 of 2025; M/S Education Academy and Others vs. District Magistrate District
Sitapur and Others, dated 28.12.2025; Special Appeal No.48 of 2026; S.B.I. Stressed Assets
Recovery Branch and Another vs. M/s G.S.M. Bricks and Tiles and Others, dated 23.02.2026,
wherein various decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court have been considered which need not be
reiterated.

36. We may emphasis that it is not a case where alternative statutory remedy under Section 17
of the Act, 2002 had not been availed by the respondents-petitioners and they filed a writ petition,
assuming it could be filed, making out a case that it fell in any of the three or four exceptions
carved out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as discussed by a Coordinate Bench in its judgment dated
23.02.2026 rendered in Special Appeal No.48 of 2026 S.B.I. Stressed Assets Recovery Branch
(supra), but, a case where the statutory alternative remedy had already been availed and during its
pendency without there being any challenge to any order passed by the DRT before whom the
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
securitization proceedings were pending and without there being any appellate order passed in such
proceedings or being challenged, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India which was not only entertained but an interim order as already referred hereinabove was
passed. This is clearly against the settled law on the subject and all settled norms as regard
maintainability of such petitions.

37. We may in this very context refer to decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in
Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. reported in
1995 (1) SCC 642 wherein a similar situation albeit in a different context had occurred and a writ
petition had been filed and entertained after the petitioner had already availed a statutory remedy
and during its pendency whereupon Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"12. The contention of the appellant in this appeal is that in the first place the writ
petition should not have been entertained. The writ petitioner had an adequate alternative statutory
remedy. The writ petitioner had in fact already taken advantage of alternative remedy provided by
the statute and had preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal. While the said
appeal was pending the writ petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court
praying more or less the same remedy as was prayed in the appeal.

13. We are of the view that the point taken by the appellant is of substance.