AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by DRT-I, Delhi in S.A. bearing No. 315/2025 titled as Sanjeev Dang v. Indusind Bank Limited whereby, I.A. bearing No. 2600/2025 filed by respondent no.1 who was S.A. applicant was allowed and following directions were passed:
6.Admittedly, the property in question was mortgaged only in the present account and on perusal of the records, it appears that the applicant was regularly paying the EMIS in the present account, but as per the submission of the respondent bank that since the other account was declared as NPA, therefore, the present account also becomes NPA, which is strongly opposed by the other side and further, the applicant has also raised the objection about the service of symbolic possession notice under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 20002 as per the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. However, these issues cannot be decided at this interim stage, that too, when the respondent bank is seeking time to file the detailed reply alongwith all the documentary evidences.
7.In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the prima facie view that there is prima facie illegality and irregularity on the part of the respondent bank in the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 qua the property in question including demand notice under section 13 (2) and 13 (3A) and symbolic possession notice under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thus, prima facie case exists in favour of the S. applicant for granting interim relief, accordingly, all the parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo qua the property in question till the next date of hearing. All other issues shall be decided after filling reply, rejoinder and evidences by the parties. Parties are also directed to cooperate with this Tribunal in early disposal of the present matter by filling their respective reply, rejoinder and evidence before the next date of hearing.
Sh. Varun Bedi, Advocate appearing for the appellant/bank stated and argued that the appellant was not given proper opportunity to file the reply to I.A. bearing No. 2600/2025 and further appropriate opportunity was also not given to advance argument on I.A. bearing No. 2600/2025.
Sh. Varun Bedi, Advocate further stated that due to the prescribed period for filing the reply to main SA the appellant has filed the reply to S.A. bearing No. 315/2025. Accordingly, he argued that the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 be set aside and DRT-I, Delhi be directed to decide I.A. bearing No. 2600/2025 afresh after giving due opportunity to advance argument to the appellant.
The perusal of order dated 05.12.2025 reflects that the appellant has not filed the reply to I.A. bearing No.2600/2025 but the contentions/arguments were advanced before the DRT-I, Delhi on I.A. bearing No. 2600/2025. The DRT-I, Delhi prima-facie opined that there was illegality and irregularity in the measures taken under SARFAESI Act by the respondent. The DRT-I, Delhi should have given an opportunity to the appellant to file reply to I.A. bearing No. 2600/2025.
The present appeal is disposed of with the direction to the DRT-I, Delhi to decide S.A. bearing No.315/2025 as early as possible preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of this order and without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned order dated 05.12.2025. The respective Advocates for the parties are also expected not to seek any unnecessary adjournment. It is further observed that if the appellant feels there is unnecessary delay in dispose of S.A. bearing No. 315/2025, in that eventuality, the appellant shall be at liberty to approach this Tribunal for appropriate direction. The pending applications also disposed of.