Prayagraj: In a case involving DRC 239/2023, K. K. Tiwari Ld. Counsel appeared for CH Bank vs Arif Iqbal Counsel appeared for CH Bank pressed for disposal of his application dt. 08.01.2026. The present urgency application has been filed by the Certificate Holder Bank seeking grant of possession/appointment of Receiver in respect of the secured asset. CH Bank has submitted that after the attachment of the property in pursuance of the order 04.09.2025 it was requested to take over the possession of the property of the defendant JD and appointing receiver for such property and to sell the same. CH Bank has submitted that the property is mortgaged with consent of UPSIDC and that bank has filed writ petition no. 10154 of 2015 before the  High Court in which UPSIDC has filed a counter on 02.09.2025 stating that the property which is mortgaged by the bank is leased whole property of UPSIDC which has been mortgaged with the bank. Recovery Officer on its order dt.29.11.2025 has not come on conclusion that once the property has been mortgaged by the bank with the consent of the

UPSIDC then Bank has right to recover its dues from the secured assets. Reply/objections have been filed by CD Nos. 1 to 3. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. CDs have raised detailed objections, which are summarized as under: 1. That the Certificate Holder Bank had earlier filed an application under Section 25(aa) of the RDB Act seeking identical relief of possession/appointment of Receiver, which stood decided by this office vide order dated 29.11.2025 and therefore the present application is not maintainable. That the Bank has suppressed material facts and has not disclosed that writ proceedings are pending before the High Court wherein an interim order of status quo has been passed and is still operative. That the Bank has already initiated parallel proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and has taken symbolic possession, therefore the present proceedings are not maintainable. That the Applicant Bank has concealed the fact that a specific status quo order dated 17.11.2025 has been passed by the Court of Ld. Additional Civil Judge -2 (Senior Division), Mathura in Suit No. 568/2025, which is still in operation. That the Certificate Holder Bank has filed a false affidavit before this Tribunal by stating that no specific stay exists, despite being a party to the aforesaid Suit No. 568/2025 wherein the status quo order dated 17.11.2025 was passed.

That the Bank is indulging in multiplicity of proceedings and forum shopping without any fresh cause of action. That no urgency is made out and the present application is merely an attempt to circumvent the earlier order passed by this office. That the earlier order dt. 29.11.2025 has attained finality and cannot be re-agitated in absence of change in circumstances. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Certificate Holder Bank supported the application. Upon consideration of the record, it is evident that the Certificate Holder Bank had earlier moved an application under Section 25(aa) of the Act seeking identical relief, which was duly considered and decided by this office vide order dated 29.11.2025. In the said order, this office had already taken note of the subsisting status quo order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ B 42518 of 2013 and ordered not to proceed under section 25(AA) of the RDB Act, 1993. The said order has attained finality as the same has neither been set aside nor modified by any superior forum.

Further, it is also evident from the record that in Suit No. 568/2025 pending before the Court of Ld. Additional Civil Judge-2 (Senior Division), Mathura wherein CH Bank is a necessary party and an order dated 17.11.2025 has been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo, which continues to remain in force. In view of the aforesaid subsisting status quo orders, any direction for taking possession or appointment of Receiver would amount to interference with judicial orders passed by competent courts. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Tribunal finds no merit in the present application. Accordingly, the urgency application filed by the Certificate Holder Bank seeking possession/appointment Receiver is rejected.

Further, the contention raised in para 5 of the objections regarding filing of a false affidavit assumes significance. The record reflects that despite being a party to the aforesaid civil proceedings pending before the Court of Ld. Additional Civil Judge-2 (Senior Division), Mathura, the Applicant Bank has stated in its application that no specific stay exists. Such conduct, prima facie, amounts to suppression of material facts and misstatement on oath.

It is further directed that the Certificate Holder Bank shall, in future, ensure that all pleadings and affidavits filed before this Office are complete, true and disclose all material facts, failing which strict action shall follow.