AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.443/2026 (application for waiver of pre-deposit)
The counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is neither the borrower nor the guarantor the mortgagor of the subject property but inherited the right in the subject property only after the death of the original owner, i.e. his grandmother. As the appellant is neither the borrower nor the guarantor nor mortgagor in respect of the subject property, the appellant is not liable to make any pre-deposit. Hence, application is allowed.
Appeal No.162/2026
The appellant filed S.A. bearing No.297/2023 titled as Rahmat V. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) & others, which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Chandigarh. DRT-II, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 dismissed the S.A. primarily on the ground of limitation by observing that the appellant had filed the S.A. on 06.11.2023 but he was having knowledge about the SARFAESI proceedings stated to have been initiated by the respondent no.1 much earlier. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 is reproduced as under:-
Admittedly on 05.08.2023, Applicant had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kaithal inter alia with the averments that his grandmother, Smt. Raj Kumari was the owner in possession of the property on the basis of Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.1986. Smt. Raj Kumari expired on 23.10.2016. An oral family settlement had taken place on 20.05.2008 whereby he was declared the owner. On 22.05.2008, a memorandum of family settlement was executed etc. The plaint further stated that Smt. Raj Kumari had never mortgaged the property in the loan account of M/s Akshit Sales Corporation. Further, Smt. Raj Kumari had executed a Will on 08.11.2012 which was registered on 03.10.2013. Smt. Raj Kumari was unable to move. Accordingly, the question of her visiting Panchkula to deposit the title-deeds, did not arise. Accordingly, the Bank be restrained from taking the possession of the house. This civil suit was filed on 05.08.2023. The plaint of the civil suit has also been rejected by the Civil Court on 17.12.2025. It is strange that the Applicant instead of filing this SA rushed to the Civil Court and filed the Civil Suit. I am of the considered view that the Applicant should have approached this Tribunal within 45 days from the date he had come to know that the Bank has initiated the SARFAESI Act. However, he filed the SA on 06.11.2023. Accordingly, this SA is time barred. I am of the considered view that the Applicant is also not entitled to the condonation of delay in filing the SA beyond time. Applicant and his father are residing in the same house. The father of the Applicant had filed SAs on two occasions. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Applicant had a bona fide belief that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. As per Section 17 of the Securitization Act, it is only the Debt Recovery Tribunal which is competent to adjudicate the SARFAESI action taken by the Bank. The application filed by the Applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also dismissed.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has initiated civil proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kaithal as the entire transaction was fraud qua the subject property and the mortgage was never created by Raj Kumari who is predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. He argued that the present S.A. was filed within the period of limitation as per the mandate of law.
It is reflected from the record that the Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank) had sanctioned Rs.1.50 crore in favour of M/s Akshit Sales Corporation, a proprietorship firm owned by Meenal Behel and Raj Kumari, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, had crated security interest in respect of the property bearing House No.460, Ward No.12, Guru Tegh Bahadur Colony, Opposite BC residence Karnal Road, Kaithal, who dies in the year 2016. The borrower did not repay the loan and therefore the respondent no.1 initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the Act. Vinod Malik, the son of Raj Kumari and father of the appellant filed S.A. bearing No.70/2019 which was allowed vide order dated 06.06.2022. Thereafter, respondent no.1 again initiated legal action under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to the legal heirs of Raj Kumari. The legal hears of Raj Kumari, including the appellant, filed S.A. No.297/2023 on 06.11.2023. The appellant claimed about the execution of the registered Will in the year 2013 and claimed legal right in the said property. The bank issued auction notice dated 25.07.2023 for 23.08.2023 and Surinder Kumar purchased the subject property in auction. However, the possession is still stated to be with the borrower. The present S.A. was filed on 06.11.2023. It is appearing that the father of the appellant had initiated a civil litigation and also filed S.A. bearing No.201/2023.
It is very much reflecting from the record that the appellant was having knowledge about legal action being taken by the respondent no.1 under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act much prior to the filing of the present S.A. on 06.11.2023, i.e. more than 45 days prior to the filing of the S.A. The arguments of the appellant are, therefore, without any merit. The DRT has taken a right view that the S.A. was barred by time. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which requires interference by this Tribunal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.