SimarPreet Singh Bhatia & others vs CholamandalamlnvestmentandFinanceCompany&others

borrower/mortgagor/guarantor. Further this Tribunal vide dated 04.02.20i6 has prima facie decided the aforesaid issues

by the applicant ana ^admittedly, the ^aforesaid order till ^{date 04.02.2026} hut not been challenged by the applicant meaning thereby the aforesaid order dated 04.02.206 has attained the time of finality. However, all ^{these issues} shall be decided at

7, In ^the light ^{above facts and circumstances} of ^the

Tribunal is of the prima facie view that at this stage no

been made out in favour of the applicant for granting relief. ^Accordingly, the interim prayer of the ^{applicant for}

restraining the respondent FI / court receiver from taking possession of the pioperty in question on 20.07.2026, stands rejected.

^{Sh. Nimesh Chib, Advocate for the appellant argued that} of which ^the with the respondent vide settlement dated 21.11.2025 and out It is further ^argued appellants have paid about Rs.50 lacs to the respondent no.1. and 13(4) of ^the that the respondent no.1 issued notices under Section 13(2)

^appellants yesterday and in the ^circumstance prayed that the

^Sh. Vivek Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.l argued that the ^respondent

no.1 has followed due process of law and the subject property has already ^auction and a ^{sale certificate} in favour of the ^{auction purchasers} who ^are respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal ^has already been issued. It is further argued that the appellants have not complied with the OTS. It is prayed that the present ^appeal

The respondent no.2 who appeared in person through VC argued that he ^has

^favour of ^{the respondents 2 and} 3. It is ^{furlher stated that}

3 after making the entire payment of sale consideration It is firmly ^stated that ^the still waiting for the possession of the subject property. 2 ^and 3 being

g. It ^{is apparent that the appellants did not fully comply with the oTS dated}

21.11.2025 and could not at this stage point out any infirmity Act or any ^{other notices} under Sections l3(2) and ¹³⁽⁴⁾ of the ^{SARFAE,SI measures} taken by the respondent no.1. Sale certificate has purchasers' DRT in ^the lavour of the ^respondents 2 and 3 being the auction

irnpugned order dated 17.07.2026 has considered all the There is ^no observed that the order dated 04.02.2026 was never challenged.

illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which warrants of any merit' this Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as being devoid counsel for the However, in view of the submission made by Sh. Nimish Chib,

appellants that there is a casualty in the family of the appellants, property for another ¹⁵ no.l is expected not to take the possession of the subject

to them ^after

^{9. The pre-deposit,} if ^{any, made by the appellants be returned}

^{The date} of ^{12.08.2026 already} fixed ^{stands cancelled.} s4l-> -