Justice Subhash sitting at the Lucknow bench, recorded in his order that he was feeling “hungry, tired and physically incapacitated” after hours of hearings, and therefore chose to reserve the judgment. The order was passed in a plea filed by Chandralekha Singh.
The day saw an unusually heavy board, with 235 cases listed before the judge, including 92 fresh matters. By 4.15 pm, Justice Vidyarthi had managed to hear only 29 fresh cases. However, when informed that the present matter had been remanded by the Supreme Court, he took it up at 4.15 pm and continued hearing the case until 7 pm.
The petition, filed in 2025, challenges an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Earlier, in May 2025, the high court had set aside the DRT’s order and directed the tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard.
The high court’s order was later challenged before the Supreme Court of India, which on August 25, 2025 set it aside on the ground that the concerned respondent had not been heard. The top court directed the high court to reconsider the petition afresh, preferably within six months—a deadline that was due to expire on Tuesday.
On that day, the matter was taken up for an extended hearing. Senior advocate Anuj Kudesia appeared for the petitioner, while senior advocate Sudeep Kumar represented the respondents. P K Srivastava argued on behalf of Canara Bank. Arguments continued at length well into the evening.
After the marathon hearing, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said he was completely exhausted and not in a position to dictate the judgment from the dais, and therefore reserved the verdict.
While doing so, the judge noted the unusually heavy board for the day, which included 92 fresh matters, 101 regular cases, 39 fresh miscellaneous applications, and three matters listed in the additional and unlisted categories. He observed that only fresh cases up to serial number 29 could be taken up during regular hours. However, in view of the Supreme Court’s directions, the hearing in the present case began at 4.15 pm and concluded at around 7.10 pm.