Raj Kumar vs HDB Financial Services Limited & Ors.

The appellant filed S.A. bearing No.209/2026 titled as Raj Kumar V HDB Financial Services Limited which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. The appellant filed an interim application bearing I.A. No.1645/2026 for restraining the respondent no.1 from conducting the proposed e-auction scheduled for 03.07.2026 or from taking any coercive steps in pursuance of sale notice dated 27.05.2026 during the pendency of the SA. The appellant contended that the respondents no.3 to 5 have taken the loan facility of Rs.50 lakhs from the respondent no.1 on the basis of forged and fabricated sale deed dated 08.11.2023. The appellant remained in the judicial custody from 28.03.2023 to 13.08.2025. The appellant also lodged FIR regarding the fabrication of sale deed dated 08.11.2023. The appellant contended that he is actually the owner of the subject property having the original titled documents pertaining to the subject property. The respondent no.1/financial institution contended that the respondent no.3 has availed a loan facility of Rs.50 lakhs from the respondent no.1 against the equitable mortgage of the subject property. The respondent no.1 has issued notices under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in accordance with law and there was no illegality in the action taken by the respondent no.1.

DRT-II, Delhi vide impugned order dated 02.07.2026 has dismissed the application bearing I.A. No.1645/2026 by observing that if the sale deed dated 08.11.2023 is forged and fabricated, it can only be decided by the competent Civil Court and registration of FIR does not give any prima facie that the document is forged and fabricated.

Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant is the bona fide owner of the subject property and is having the complete chain of titled documents which have also been produced before the Tribunal. However, the e-auction of the subject property scheduled for 03.07.2026 could not be done as stated by the counsel for the appellant. There is no fresh date on which the schedule is fixed for conducting of the e-auction of the subject property/secured asset.

In these circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.1/Financial Institution that as and when the respondent no.1/Financial Institution proposed to put the subject property on auction, in that eventuality when the respondent no.1 shall inform to DRT-II, Delhi at least 10 days prior to the proposed date of e-auction so that the appellant can initiate appropriate proceedings if super-posed.