AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant filed S.A. bearing No.66/2026 titled as Deepak Kumar Jha vs. UCO Bank & others and during the pendency of the said S.A. appellant filed an application I.A. No.1031/2026 wherein the appellant challenged the SARFAESI actions initiated by the respondent bank including the notice issued by the Court Receiver for taking the physical possession of the property in question on 30.04.2026. The application I.A. No.1031/2026 was dismissed by DRT-II, Delhi vide order dated 24.04.2026. The operative part of the said order is reproduced as under:-
9.From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the mortgaged in favour of the respondent dated on 14.09.2025 and the loan was taken on the same date by other respondents. The Sale Deed in favour of the applicant is on 07.10.2017. Therefore, the claim of the respondent bank is prior to the Sale Deed in favour of the applicant. In such circumstances, the respondent bank will have priority over the property and therefore, the contention of the applicant has no force. In light of the above, the interim prayer of the applicant is liable to be dismissed.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had purchased the property in the year 2017 vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.10.2017 and the appellant was never served with any notice and more particularly under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. It is also argued that the appellant is a complete stranger to the entire loan transaction and as such the possession of the appellant is required to be protected. The counsel for the appellant also referred to the possession notice dated 07.04.2026 during the course of arguments. Accordingly, the counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 24.04.2026.
The counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments also referred to sub-section (13) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act besides a Supreme Court judgments in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. Internl. Asset Reonstrn. Co. Ltd. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.736/2024, decided on 03.4.2014 and PNB Housing Finance Ltd. v. Sh. Manoj Saha & Anr., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) NO.7288/2024, decided on 15.07.2025.
It appears from the impugned order that the charge over the property in question in favour of the respondent bank was created in the year 2015 and appellant has allegedly purchased the subject-property in the year 2017 when the property was under the charge of the respondent bank. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 which warrants interference by this Tribunal.
The appeal is dismissed.