AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
File taken up today on application bearing No.883/2026 for preponement of the hearing. After considering all facts, the appeal is taken up for hearing today. The application is accordingly allowed. Sh. Ajay Paul, advanced argument on behalf of the appellant on merit.
The appellant filed S.A. bearing No. 82/2026 titled as Krishna Makkar @ Krishna Devi V. Punjab National Bank and another before DRT-II, Chandigarh. The appellant during the pendency of S.A. bearing No. 82/2026 filed an application bearing I.A. No. 287/2026 for seeking the stay of operation of the sale proclamation notice dated 16.02.2026 whereby the secured asset bearing property No. D-5/1, (2nd) Floor, DLF Exclusive Floor, Phase-V, Gurugram was proposed to be put to auction scheduled for 23.03.2026. DRT-II, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 has dismissed the said application. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 is reproduced as under:
9.The present application seeks stay of auction proceedings initiated pursuant to sale proclamation dated 16.02.2026. The principal grounds raised by the Applicant pertain to alleged lack of notice, claim of ownership as legal heir, and alleged illegality in SARFAESI proceedings. At the outset, it is evident from the record that the secured asset was mortgaged by the recorded owner, Sh. Bharat Makkar, in favour of the Respondent Bank in the years 2013 and 2015, on the basis of registered conveyance deed dated 23.08.2011. The mortgage thus created constitutes a valid and subsisting security interest.
10.The claim of the Applicant is founded upon alleged inheritance and a purported Will. Such claim, being subsequent to creation of mortgage, cannot override the prior charge created in favour of the secured creditor. It is a settled principle that the secured creditor's rights take precedence over subsequent transfers or claims. Further, the issues raised by the Applicant regarding title, inheritance, and validity of Will involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The appropriate remedy for such claims lies before a competent civil court. The plea of non-service of notices is also not found convincing at this stage. The material placed on record indicates that statutory measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) have been taken and possession proceedings were carried out prior to issuance of sale proclamation. It is also noteworthy that the Applicant has earlier approached this Tribunal by filing multiple Securitisation Applications concerning the same property and loan transaction. The present application appears to be a continuation of attempts to stall recovery proceedings at an advanced stage of auction. The conduct of the Applicant in repeatedly invoking jurisdiction of this Tribunal at different stages, without demonstrating any new or exceptional circumstance, disentitles her from grant of equitable relief.
11.The essential ingredients for grant of interim relief, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, are not satisfied in the present case. On the contrary, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the secured creditor, as public money is involved and recovery proceedings cannot be indefinitely stalled. The Tribunal is of the considered view that the present application is devoid of merit and has been filed merely to delay the recovery process. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present I.A. No. 287 of 2026 stands dismissed.
Sh. Ajay Paul, Advocate for the appellant stated that by virtue of conveyance deed dated 23.08.2011, Bharat Makkar who is the son of the appellant became the owner of the subject property and thereafter Bharat Makkar executed Deed of Property Transfer dated 08.05.2016 in favour of Amar Lal Makkar in respect of the subject property and said Amar Lal Makkar was husband of the appellant. Amar Lal Makkar stated is to have died and the appellant is claiming her right in respect of property being one of the legal heirs of Amar Lal Makkar. Sh. Ajay Paul, Advocate further argued that the appellant being one of the legal heirs of late Amar Lal Makkar has every right, title and interest in respect of the subject property and could be established adequately before the Tribunal and, therefore, the auction of the subject property be stayed. Accordingly, it was argued that the impugned order be set aside and necessary protection be granted in favour of the appellant.
It is reflecting from the record that Bharat Makkar has acquired right, title and interest in respect of the subject property by virtue of conveyance deed stated to have been executed by DLF in favour of Bharat Makkar. Bharat Makkar is the son of the appellant. Bharat Makkar has created the mortgage in respect of the subject property and also executed mortgage confirming letters in the year 2013 and 2015. However, Bharat Makkar during the pendency of the mortgage executed Deed of Property Transfer dated 08.04.2016 in favour of his father Amar Lal Makkar who was the husband of the appellant. The appellant is stated to be the one of the legal heirs of the appellant. DRT-II, Chandigarh in the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 has observed that the appellant has also filed many securitisation applications and said factual position is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant during the course of argument. DRT-II, Chandigarh has considered the claim of the appellant being the legal heir of Amar Lal Makkar and also the alleged illegality in SARFAESI proceedings. DRT-II, Chandigarh also took note that the recorded owner Bharat Makkar has created mortgage in respect of the subject property in favour of the respondent on the basis of registered conveyance deed dated 23.08.2011. It is not understandable once the property was mortgaged with the respondent how Bharat Makkar has created or executed the deed of property transfer in favour of Amar Lal Makkar. It appears that the Deed of Property Transfer was executed by Bharat Makkar in favour of Amar Lal Makkar only to circumvent and defeat the legitimate recovery of the loan amount. The appellant herself has filed multiple securitisation applications to defeat the recovery of the outstanding loan amount. The present appeal is gross abuse of process of law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by DRT-II, Chandigarh.
After considering all facts legal as well as factual, the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit, subject to cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with the DRT Bar Association, Chandigarh in S.B. A/c No.11152010030160 maintained with Punjab National Bank (IFSC: PUNB0111510) within 15 days from today and receipt be produced before DRT-II, Chandigarh on the next date of hearing
The date of 14.07.2026 stands cancelled.