AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on the application I.A. No. 330/2026.
This application is filed with prayer for grant of interim relief to restrain the Respondents from taking any action under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act against the property of the Appellant/Borrower by taking its physical possession.
The brief facts for disposal of this application are as under:
(i). That an interim application I.A. No. 652/2026 in Securitization Application No. 161/2024 was filed by the Appellant/Borrower for stay.
(ii). That I.A. No. 652/2026 was dismissed by the Learned Lower Tribunal wide impugned order dated 15.04.2026. Aggrieved from the same the Appellant/Borrower has preferred the present appeal in which present Interim Application I.A. No. 330/2026 has been filed for the ad-interim relief.
Heard.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Borrower would submit that the Appellant/Borrower has good prima facie case as there was no bifurcation of the amount in the demand notice issued to the Appellant/Borrower under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. He would further submit that that the proprietorship firm has been incorrectly described as a partnership firm in the said demand notice.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to 4 would vehemently oppose the prayer and contest the application on the ground that the Appellant/Borrower has utterly failed to show the good prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour.
The Learned Counsel of the Respondent No. 1/Bank would submit that the Appellant/Borrower is a defaulter and is leaving no stone unturned to obstruct the recovery of the due amount by one way or the other.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents would further submit that the grounds taken in the present Interim Application before this Appellate Tribunal for the ad-interim injunctions were never taken, pleaded or argued before the Lower Tribunal therefore those cannot be raised for the first time in this Appellate Tribunal.
Considered and Perused the Record.
Perusal of the Interim Application 652/2026 filed by the Appellant/Borrower before the Learned Lower Tribunal would reflect that there is no pleading that the demand notice did not have the bifurcation of the Amount, Principal Amount, Interest, Rate of Interest etc. as being argued today before this Appellate Tribunal.
The further perusal would also reflect that there is no mention in this appeal that notices were not served on all the partners. Even otherwise, the natural corollary of this argument is that if of one of the partners had received the demand notice, the service of that demand notice on one partner shall tantamount to the service of notice to all other partners and the partnership firms under the law.
In view of the above, this Appellate Tribunal does not find any incorrectness or illegality in the impugned order. The Appellant has failed to show any prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. Therefore, there is no merit in application.
Hence, the Application No. 330/2026 is dismissed.
The respondents are directed to file the reply/objections to the grounds of the main appeal within four weeks with an advance copy to the other sides.
Rejoinder to the same may be filed within three weeks thereafter with an advance copy to the other sides.
List the case on 03.11.2026 for hearing.