CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 02 MP CK 1792

Ghisalal Dhakad vs SRG Housing Finance Ltd. Udaipur And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench · Decided on 18 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J · Alok Awasthi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Petition No. 692 Of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 355 words

Vijay Kumar Shukl, J

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by DRT Lucknow, who is having additional charge of DRT Jabalpur.

The facts draped in brevity are that the petitioner had taken a loan from the Bank and against him an order under section 14 of SARFAESI Act was passed. Against the said order, he filed an application under section 17 of SARFAESI Act before the DRT. The DRT passed the impugned order on the submission of counsel for the applicant before the DRT that the applicant wants to settle the account and the applicant will deposit Rs.3,00,000/- within 15 days of the order and will submit a suitable OTS proposal before the respondent.

The Court made it very clear that if the same is not complied with or any default is committed, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and the case has been fixed for 01.05.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was some miscommunication on the part of the counsel for the petitioner because the matter was heard through Video Conferencing.

We do not appreciate such a submission. Once it is recorded in the ordersheet that the counsel made a submission on behalf of the applicant and then the order was passed, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he could have resorted to the remedy available to him in accordance with the law.

We do not find any merit in the petition.

The petition is dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will deposit the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as directed by the Tribunal within the period of seven days from today without resorting to the remedy of appeal against the impugned order. If the amount is deposited within the period of seven days from today, the order passed by the tribunal shall remain operative for the said period. However, it is made clear that if the amount is not deposited, the respondent/bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.