Yas Electricals And Appliance Thru. ... vs Authorized Office Sbfc Finance Pvt. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 114 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Yas Electricals And Appliance Thru. ... vs Authorized Office Sbfc Finance Pvt. ... on 2 February, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:7469
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW  
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7549 of 2025    
 
   Yas Electricals And Appliance Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Sayeed And 3 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Authorized Office Sbfc Finance Pvt. Ltd. Lko.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)        
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Sharad Kumar Shukla, Ravindra Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
 
 
   
 
      
 
 Court No. - 17
 
    
 
 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.      

1. Heard Shri Sharad Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No.920 of 2025 dismissing the S.A.

3. The impugned order dated 28.11.2025 is being reproduced below :-

"Ld. Counsels for both the parties are present.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant is moving IA No. 4448/2025 for early hearing and IA No 4447/2025 for interim stay in order to stay e-auction scheduled on 30.11.2025. Admittedly, applicant is third party and borrower and co-borrower or guarantors are not pursuing the SA Applicant is claiming to be third party.

I find that applicant has got separate cause of action and he may file separate SA for the same He cannot enter in the SA without permission of original borrower as original applicant have paid court fee for the same, accordingly, the SA is dismissed.

Let the file be consigned to record room.

Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website."

4. A bare perusal of the order indicates that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was hearing an application for early hearing and another application for interim stay. These applications were being filed by third parties- (i) Smt. Shaheen, (ii) Mohd. Daud Yunus and (iii) Raheem Ahmed and the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow took a view that the third parties have a separate cause of action and they may file a separate S.A.

5. While rejecting the application of the third parties for interim relief, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow has rejected the S.A. itself which has been filed by the petitioner - Yas Electricals And Appliance. This order has apparently been passed without hearing the petitioners-applicant in S.A.- Yas Electricals.

6. The impugned order suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the record.

7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off by giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow bringing the aforesaid error apparent on the face of the record to the knowledge of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow upon which the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow will pass appropriate orders expeditiously, in accordance with law.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

February 2, 2026

-Amit K-