AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant filed S.A. No.564/2024 titled as Vikrant Chauhan V. Canara Bank & others before DRT-II, Chandigarh. The appellant during the course of proceedings filed an application I.A. No.436/2026 seeking interim relief against the notice dated 06.04.2026 issued by the Court Commissioner for taking possession of the mortgaged property. The said application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 21.04.2026. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 21.04.2026 are reproduced as under:-
13.The primary contention of the applicant relates to alleged non-compliance of statutory provisions under Sections 13(2), 13(4) and Rules 8 and 9. However, these are disputed questions of fact which require detailed examination on merits in the main Securitisation Application. At this stage, no material has been placed on record to conclusively demonstrate that the proceedings are ex facie illegal or without jurisdiction.
14.Further, the record, including the notice issued by the Court Commissioner (as seen on page 9 of the application, reflects that the possession proceedings are being carried out pursuant to a judicial order passed by the competent authority, thereby lending prima facie legitimacy to the action of the respondent bank. The contention of the applicant regarding alleged false affidavit and defective proceedings under Section 14 also involves factual adjudication which cannot be conclusively determined by this Tribunal.
15.It is a settled principle that grant of interim relief requires satisfaction of three essential ingredients, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. In the present case, the applicant has failed to establish any strong prima facie illegality in the action of the respondent bank so as to warrant interference.
16.On the contrary, the respondent bank, being a secured creditor, is exercising its statutory rights for recovery of its dues in accordance with law. Grant of interim relief at this stage would amount to stalling statutory recovery proceedings without sufficient justification. The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the applicant and no irreparable injury is made out. In view of the aforesaid, no case for grant of interim relief is made out. I.A. No.436/2026 stands dismissed.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the bank has not issued the notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act strictly in accordance with law and also referred to the application bearing I.A. No.436/2026. A perusal of the application bearing I.A. No.436/2026 reflects that the appellant in para 4 has categorically mentioned that the respondent bank in reply to the S.A. No.564/2024 had admitted the fact that they had not served the demand notice under Section 13(2), possession notice under Section 13(4) read with other relevant provisions of law. The counsel for the appellant could not point out in the reply submitted to the said S.A. regarding the said admission.
The perusal of the impugned order reflects that the DRT-II, Chandigarh has considered all the relevant issues while passing the impugned order dated 21.04.2026. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order which warrants interference from this Tribunal.
The appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to raise each and every pleas and contentions available to him during the hearing of the S.A.
Since the appeal stands disposed of, the pre-deposit made by the appellant be released to the appellant along with accrued interest, if any.
Copy of this order be given Dasti to the appellant.