Vinod Dubey vs Standard Chartered Bank

Arguments heard. The appellant had availed a Home Loan of Rs.12 lacs which was repayable in 192 EMIs of Rs.11,851/- till 18.03.2019. The said loan account bearing no.41748107 was declared NPA on 18.03.2020. The respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The appellants filed objections under Section 13(3) of the Act.

The appellant filed S.A. bearing No.388/2024 titled as Vinod Dubey v Standard Chartered Bank which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. The appellant filed two applications bearing no.5054/2024 seeking review of order dated 11.12.2024 and I.A. No.1640/2025 seeking stay of possession notice dated 19.05.2025 and to restrain the respondent bank from taking possession of the subject property on 17.06.2025 and direct the respondent bank to maintain status quo till the disposal of the review application in the said S.A. DRT-II, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 has dismissed both the applications. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

Ms. Reema Khorana, Advocate for the respondent stated that vide order dated 11.12.2024 the appellant was not granted interim order in respect of taking of physical possession of the subject property scheduled for 12.12.2024. It is further stated that the appellant has filed another S.A. bearing No.301/2025 wherein an interim order in favour of the appellant was passed on 28.10.2025 and the respondent was restrained from auctioning the subject property subject to certain conditions. Ms. Khorana also stated that the floating rate of interest was to be charged on the loan and there is nothing wrong in the impugned order.

Sh. Om Prakash Mathur, Advocate for the appellant stated that the appellant has already paid the entire loan amount and rather, has paid 12 extra EMIs to the respondent. The respondent has initiated action under the SARFAESI Act illegally. However, the counsel for the appellant admitted the filing of another S.A. and DRT’s passing of injunction order therein against the respondent.

Since vide order dated 28.10.2025 passed in S.A. No.301/2025 interim injunction has already been granted in favour of the appellant, there is nothing as such to review the order dated 11.12.2024 as was prayed for by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the respondent has already taken the physical possession of the subject property as such, under these circumstances, I.A. No.1640/2025 also does not survive any more. The present appeal, therefore, does not require further adjudication and is accordingly disposed of. However, it is expected that DRT-II, Delhi shall make all possible endeavour to dispose of the S.As. bearing no.388/2024 and 301/2025 expeditiously without any further delay.

The appellant shall be at liberty to approach the respondent to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, if any.

The pre-deposit, if any, made by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant along with accrued interest as per rules.