Anita Mahapatra & Anr. vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors.

Sh. C. S. Pasricha, Advocate for the respondent no.1 stated that the appellants have paid Rs.15 lakhs in terms of the order dated 28.01.2026 but did not pay Rs.20 lakhs within the stipulated period in terms of the order dated 28.01.2026. The counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants have already filed an application for directions. It appears at this stage that the settlement in terms of the order dated 28.01.2026 is not possible.

With the consent of the parties, arguments heard on appeal. It is reflecting from the record that the respondent no.1 had sanctioned a housing loan in favour of appellant and the respondent no.2 stood as guarantor. The appellant also created security interest over the property bearing Flat No.103. GH-34, Super Area 1490 sq. ft., First Floor, The Shri Shiv Mahima CGHS Ltd., Sector-65, Faridabad. The appellant committed default in the repayment of the loan amount and filed S.A. No.438/2024. It is also reflecting that the appellant challenged the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the DM by filing a Writ Petition bearing CWP No.4458/2021 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was disposed of on 28.05.2026 with liberty to the appellants to avail remedy available in accordance with law and directed to file appropriate application before the DRT within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The appellants in the present appeal challenged the notice dated 11.07.2024 stated to be issued by the Tehsildar, Ballabgarh in pursuance of the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Faridabad. In the said S.A., respondent no.1 opposed the S.A. and stated that respondent no.1 had taken action under the SARFAESI Act in accordance with law and specifically stated that the present S.A. is barred by time.

DRT-II, Chandigarh in the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 observed that the appellant has challenged the notice issued by Tehsildar, dated 11.07.2024, which was issued in pursuance of the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the District Magistrate. During the course of arguments the counsel for the appellants stated that one year was taken for conclusion of proceedings in pursuance of CWP No.4458/2021. It is appearing that DRT-II, Chandigarh has rightly and correctly observed that the appellants were aware about the passing of the order in the year 2021 by the District Magistrate and due to this reason correctly and rightly observed that the S.A. is barred by time. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.