AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent in the present appeal as well as before DRT, i.e. DCB Bank Ltd. sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,14,97,540/- to the appellant before this Tribunal and applicant before DRT, namely, Parveen Dalal vide Loan Account HHOMEDEL00028276. The appellant could not stick to the financial discipline and committed default in the repayment of the said loan amount. The respondent issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and, thereafter, initiated proceeding under Section 13(4) of the said Act. The District Magistrate, Faridabad, vide order dated 13.02.2026, issued an order for taking possession of the secured asset. The appellant being aggrieved, filed a Securitization Application (SA) bearing No.180/2026 titled as "Parveen Dalal V. DCB Bank Ltd." before DRT-II, Chandigarh. The DRT, vide order dated 01.04.2026, dismissed an interim application filed by the appellant in the SA and listed the case on 28.05.2026 for further hearing on SA. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.04.2026 is as under:-
15.In the present case, the applicant has failed to demonstrate any prima facie illegality in the action of the respondent bank. The allegations regarding excess payment, wrongful NPA classification and incorrect statement of account are matters requiring adjudication on merits and cannot be grounds for grant of blanket interim protection. The contention regarding Full and Final Settlement also does not prima facie assist the applicant, as the record indicates that such settlement pertained only to one loan account, whereas the other loan account remained outstanding and irregular.
16.Further, no material has been placed on record to establish that mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act or Rules have been violated. ON the contrary, the documents on record reflect compliance with statutory requirements including service and publication of notices. The applicant has also failed to establish the essential ingredients for grant of interim relief, namely, Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. On the contrary, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the secured creditor, who is entitled to enforce its security interest for recovery of public money. Grant of interim relief at this stage would amount to stalling statutory recovery proceedings without any substantiated illegality, which is impermissible in law.
17.In view of the foregoing discussion, prayer for interim relief stands dismissed.
The appellant being aggrieved, filed the present appeal to challenge the order dated 01.04.2026, which is under consideration of this Tribunal.
Sh. Hashmat Nabi, on instruction from Lokesh Mittal, Zonal Legal Manager, stated that as on today an amount of Rs.1.04 crores (approx.) is due towards the appellant is to be paid as per the financial discipline.
This Tribunal, with the consent of the parties, has made an effort to amicably settle the disputes between the parties. After deliberation and negotiation, it is agreed between the parties as under:
It is agreed that the appellant shall pay Rs.92 lakhs to the respondent bank towards full and final settlement of the outstanding loan amount in respect of Loan Account No. HHOMEDEL00028276 as per the following schedule:
It is informed that the appellant has already made a pre-deposit of Rs.21,51,496/- before this Tribunal. It is agreed that the said amount shall be released to the respondent bank immediately without any objection from the appellant.
It is agreed that appellant shall pay Rs.20 lacs to the respondent bank on or before 31.05.2026 towards further payment of the settled loan amount.
It is further agreed that the balance amount shall be paid by the respondent on or before 30.06.2026.
It is informed that respondent bank is scheduled to take possession of the secured asset on 22.04.2026. It is agreed that respondent bank shall not take possession of the secured asset till 30.06.2026, provided the appellant pays the instalments of the loan amount as per the schedule given hereinabove without committing any default.
It is agreed that if any default is committed by the appellant in the payment as detailed hereinabove, then the respondent bank shall be at liberty to recover the entire loan amount and to proceed in accordance with law, including to take possession of the secured asset through the Receiver/Tehsildar already appointed by the District Magistrate in terms of the order dated 13.02.2026.
It is agreed that if the appellant pays the entire amount as settled hereinabove on or before 30.06.2026, then the respondent bank shall release the secured asset, i.e. House No.373, Sector-8, Faridabad, Haryana (comprising an area of 250 sq.yd.).
It is also agreed that the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act/ 1988 filed against the appellant on the basis of post-dated cheques shall be withdrawn by the bank within a week after 30.06.2026 subject to payment of entire settled amount in terms of the schedule is made by the appellant.
It is agreed that both the parties shall not initiate any proceedings against each other after payment of entire settled amount by the appellant.
It is also agreed that if any legal proceedings have already been initiated by the applicant/appellant against the respondent, it shall be withdrawn by the appellant after the payment of entire settlement amount.
In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of. However, in case any default is committed by either of the parties, the concerned parties shall be at liberty to revive the appeal. Registry of this Tribunal is directed to release the pre-deposit along with accrued interest to the appellant immediately.
Sh. P. Bhattacharya, counsel for the appellant, stated that he has agreed with this settlement after taking proper instructions from the appellant/applicant.
Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.