Gunjit Kalra vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. Thru. Authorized Officer Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1778 of 2026

Gunjit Kalra

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Piramal Capital And Housing Finance Ltd. Thru. Authorized Officer Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sharad Dwivedi, Nakul Pathak, Naman Jain Counsel for Respondent(s) : Deepak Singh, Ajit Singh, Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Shobhit Harsh

¶8

Court No. - 17

¶9

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶10

Heard Sri J.N. Mathur Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sharad Dwivedi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pritish Kumar, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Deepak Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1-Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Advocate, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3.

¶11

Since the petitioner has not sought any relief against the opposite parties no. 4 & 5, notice need not be issued to them.

¶12

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitisation Application No. 363/2023 whereby the S.A. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by observing that there is no merit in the S.A. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing Appeal Dy. No. 1561/2023 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and the appeal has been dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 17.11.2025 by recording that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. The petitioner has also

¶13

WRIC No. 1778 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

challenged the validity of a sale certificate dated 17.03.2023 issued in favour of the opposite party no. 2.

¶16

Assailing the validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rohtas Projects Limited had executed a mortgage deed dated 03.07.2014 in favour of Diwan Housing Finance Corporation Limited in respect of a portion of Rohtas Presidential Arcade, constructed on Plot No. TCG 4/4, along with land admeasuring 12,500 sq.ft. i.e. 1161.710 square meters, situated in Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, which is bounded as below: -

¶17

East: Other space/residential area West: Spensor's area/ building front setback North: Spensor's area/ residential area South: Open to sky/ building front setback

¶18

A map of the mortgaged area is annexed with the deed which does not mention any dimensions or boundary of the mortgaged area and it only mentions the total built up area 12,500 sq. ft.

¶19

Thereafter the petitioner purchased a shop bearing unit no.12 from M/s Rohtas Projects Ltd. through a separate sale deed dated 12.12.2017. The units is situated on the ground floor. Unit no.12 has super area of about 185.81 sq.mtr., built up area of 152.74 sq. mtr. and carpet area 150.41 sq. mtr.

¶20

It is the specific case of the petitioner that prior to purchasing the shop in question, they had exercised due diligence by getting inquiries made from the office of the concerned Sub-registrar to ascertain whether any prior deed was registered regarding the aforesaid unit purchased by him and it was only after having assured himself that no such deed had been registered, the petitioner purchased the aforesaid shop.

¶21

Later on it transpired that Rohtas Projects had mortgaged the property in question described above measuring 12,500 sq. ft. in favour of Diwan Housing Financing Limited and it is alleged that the shop purchased by

¶22

WRIC No. 1778 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

the petitioner also formed a part of the 12500 sq.ft. mortgaged by Rohtas in favour of DHFL, although the mortgaged deed does not specifically make any mention of any unit no, including unit no.12.

¶25

The mortgaged property was registered with the central registry of securitisation asset reconstruction and security interest of India wherein the asset details merely state the building name 'Rohtas Presidential Arcade' and built up area as 12500.13 sq. ft. No other particulars of the property are mentioned in the particulars registered with the Central Registry (CERSAI).

¶26

The petitioner executed a lease deed dated 23.05.2018 whereby he leased out both the shop to Creators Hub Business Center. The petitioner case is that the lessee paid rent merely for a period of eighteen months and thereafter they stopped paying rent. The lessee filed Regular Suit no. 430/2020 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, against- (1). Gunjeet Kalra, (2). Ajay Kumar Gupta (petitioner no. 1), (3). Smt. Shalini Gupta (petitoner no. 2), (4). M/s Rohtas Project Limited (opposite party no. 4) and (5). Diwan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (which stands amalgamated in Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited (opposite party no. 1) and which has further been converted into Piramal Finance Limited and (6). Chief Branch, Allahabad Bank, Hazaratganj, Lucknow, claiming a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching in the commercial units no. 10, 11 & 12 situated on ground floor in Rohtas Presidential Arcade situated at plot no. TCG 4/4, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. It was mentioned in para 9 of the plaint "that the aforesaid properties, due to diwalia of defendant no. 4, right and title of unit nos. 10, 11 & 12 have vested in favour of defendants no. 5 & 6 because loan amount of defendants. no. 5 & 6 was not cleared till date, hence R.P. has already deputed for settlement of the aforesaid loan amount to the property as mentioned above."

¶27

WRIC No. 1778 of 2026

¶28

4

¶29

Meanwhile the National Company Law Tribunal passed an order dated 30.09.2019 in C.P. No. 1B-1022/ND/2018 appointing an Interim Resolution Professional for settling the dues of Rohtas Projects Limited under provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The order specifically states that the corporate debtor shall be under moratorium on the following terms: -

¶30

"10 (a) the institution of suits continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;

¶31

(b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;

¶32

(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce; any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;

¶33

(d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor."

¶34

A committee of creditors was constituted which prepared a resolution plan on 10.05.2021 which contains the names of financial creditors and it does not include DHFL or its successor-in-interest Piramal Housing Finance, as their claims had been rejected by the committee of creditors.. This proposal was approved by National Company Law Tribunal by means of an order dated 12.12.2021. The order dated 13.12.2021 passed by NCLT was never challenged and it attained finality.

¶35

Sri. J. N. Mathur, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that once the petitioner's claim was rejected by the committee of creditors and the resolution plan was approved by NCLT, the claims of all other persons not included in the resolution plan stood extinguished. In support of this submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors. : (2021) 9 SCC 657.

¶36

WRIC No. 1778 of 2026

¶37

5

¶38

Meanwhile, Piramal Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act against Rohtas Project Ltd. A possession notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was issued on 13.02.2020 and on 29.03.2022, another notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued. The description of the property mentioned in the notices under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was all the part and parcel of the property ground floor, Rohtas Presidential Arcade, Plot No. TCG 4/4, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.226006. It does not mention the area 12500 sq. ft. and it does not mention any other description so as to identify the property that was subject matter of the notice. In any case, it does not mention Unit nos.12 purchased by the petitioner.

¶39

Thereafter an auction notice was issued on 08.01.2023 and the property was auctioned in favour of the opposite party no. 2. A sale certificate was issued on 17.03.2023, which was registered on 25.03.2025.

¶40

The petitioner filed SA No. 363/2023, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. On 18.05.2023, DRT, Lucknow passed an interim order in the aforesaid SA restraining further alienation of the subject property.

¶41

The order dated 29.09.2023 passed by DRT in SA No. 363/2023 mentions that the counsel for the respondent bank had submitted that the S.A. was time barred and the issue of limitation should be decided first. Submission of the learned counsel for the parties were heard and the SA was ordered to be listed on 20.10.2023 for order on limitation. However, on 03.11.2023, the DRT has passed a final judgment wherein instead of deciding the issue of limitation the DRT has held that there is no merit in the SA.

¶42

The judgment and order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the DRT, Lucknow was challenged by filing an appeal DY No. 1561/2023 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad. On 15.10.2024,

¶43

WRIC No. 1778 of 2026

¶44

6

¶45

DRAT had passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the properties in question. It is recorded in the order dated 15.10.2024 that:-

¶46

"Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 seeks time to file reply, which is opposed by the counsel for the appellant on the ground that the time was granted earlier for filing reply, but no reply has been filed and the connected appeal Dy. No. 1520/2023, in which interim order has already been passed. In the present case, It was observed that the stay application will be considered on the next date. It is further contended that the present appeal is also filed on the same ground as the appeal Dy. No. 1520/2023, which is listed today at item no.14.

¶47

In view of the above, let the respondents file reply within a week after serving copy of the same upon the counsel for the appellant, who may file rejoinder by the next date.

¶48

Since the interim order has already been operative in the connected appeal Dy. No. 1520/2023, therefore, the same shall be applicable in the present case also.

¶49

List this case on 14.11.2024 for hearing. "

¶50

The DRAT has dismissed the appeal by means of the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2025 which records detailed submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, including the submissions that after approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, no other financial creditor has a right over the insolvent company or its property. The judgment mentions the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant had drawn attention of the Appellate Tribunal to paras 5.42 and 5.43 of the memo of appeal and had submitted that the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs have not been denied by the respondents. The DRAT has also recorded the contention of the appellant that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra), SARFAESI proceedings could not have been initiated by the respondent-financial institution.

¶51

However, the DRAT has dismissed the appeal holding that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the DRT, Lucknow, without dealing with aforesaid the submissions advanced on

¶52

WRIC No. 1778 of 2026

¶53

7

¶54

behalf of the appellant which are recorded in the impugned judgment.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties had filed written submissions in appeal and one of the submissions contained in the written submissions was that the DRAT had heard submissions on the point of limitation only, but the judgment has been passed dismissing the claim on merits and giving any decision on the point of limitation.

¶56

The opposite parties no. 2 & 3 have filed an application for dismissal of the writ petition along with a short counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶57

Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate representing respondents no. 2 & 3 has raised two fold objections: the first submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 is that the petitioner had lodged an FIR No. 808/2018 at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Commissionrate Lucknow on 16.12.2018 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 419, 467, 468 & 471 IPC against the opposite party no. 5 Paresh Rastogi, his brother Piyush Rastogi, Pankaj Rastogi and unnamed officers of Allahabad Bank wherein he had inter alia stated that he had purchased Unit No. 12 in Rohtas Presidential Arcade from Rohtas Projects Limited through a registered sale deed executed on 08.12.2017. The seller wrongly represented that the property was free from all encumbrances. The petitioner had exercised due diligence and had obtained a non encumbrance certificate from the office of Sub-Registrar before purchasing the property and thereafter he leased it out to Creators Hub Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. through a lease-deed dated 23.05.2018, for a period of five years. On 29.09.2018, Allhabad Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demanding a sum of Rs. 9, 49,58,766/- from Paresh Rastogi and it was mentioned in this notice that Rohtas Presendital Arcade was mortgaged with the bank. A copy of the mortgage deed was annexed with the complaint on the basis whereof

¶58

WRIC No. 1778 of 2026

¶59

8

¶60

the FIR was lodged. He has submitted that it shows that the petitioner had knowledge of the mortgage.

¶61

The second objection of the learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 is that the petitioner had filed written submissions before DRT raising all the pleas and that the submissions were not limited to the plea of limitation only. As when the petitioner had advanced submissions on the merits of the case, the DRT has not committed any error in deciding the case on merits.

¶62

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the mortgage deed does not make a mention of Unit No.12 that was purchased by him. Similar was the case set-up by Ajay Kumar and another, who had filed Writ C No.1371 of 2026 stating that they had purchased Unit Nos.10 and 11 and this Court has accepted the plea that the mortgage deed does not make a mention of Unit Nos.10, 11 and 12 and, therefore, the mere knowledge of mortgage deed will not affect the rights of the petitioner in respect of shop in question when the mortgage deed does not make a mention of the petitioner's unit either by unit number or by its boundaries.

¶63

The second submission of Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi can also not be accepted because the written submissions bear the title "Written Arguments on the point of Limitation by applicants". Since the limitation is a mixed question of facts and law, the submissions referred to facts of the case also but the reference to facts was only made to make out the point of limitation. In the order dated 29.09.2023, the DRT has specifically recorded "Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. List this case on 20.10.2023 for order on limitation."

¶64

Therefore, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 that submissions have been heard and written submissions have been filed on the merits of the case and not on the point of limitation only.

¶65

WRIC No. 1778 of 2026

¶66

9

¶67

Shri Pritish Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate representing the opposite party no.1- Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. has also vehemently opposed the writ petition. He has invited attention to the relief sought by the petitioner before the DRT. He has submitted that the petitioner has sought quashing of the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act which notices have not been issued against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to claim the aforesaid reliefs. He has submitted that when the substantive relief cannot be granted to the petitioner in the proceedings before the DRT, no useful purpose will be served in setting aside the order passed by the DRT and remanding the matter for being decided afresh.

¶68

This submission cannot be accepted because the relief sought by the petitioner is not limited to a challenged made to the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has also challenged the sale certificate dated 17.07.2023 and the entire proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act and Security Interest Enforcement Rules 2002 against the applicant's property bearing Unit No.12 situated at PCG, 4/4, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and he has sought an order restraining the opposite parties from initiating any action under SARFAESI Act and Security Interest Enforcement Rules 2002 against the applicant's property. This Court need not examine the merits of the claim of the petitioner regarding several reliefs sought by him and that should be better left to be done by the DRT.

¶69

The second objection raised by Shri Pritish Kumar is that the plea of limitation was raised by the opposite party No.1 and not by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice by non-decision of the question of limitation.

¶70

Regarding this submission, suffice it to say that the grievance of the petitioner is that although the matter was heard and order was reserved on the question of limitation, the entire claim has been rejected on its merits.

¶71

WRIC No. 1778 of 2026

¶72

10

¶73

Therefore, whether the question of limitation was raised by the petitioner or by the opposite party No.1, would not make any difference and what is relevant to note is that having heard the entire submissions on point of limitations and not on merits of the case, the DRT decided the case on its merits which obviously causes serious prejudice to the petitioner.

¶74

On similar points, Writ C No.1371 of 2026 was filed in support of the unit Nos.10 and 11 in the same premises which has been allowed by means of a judgmnent and order 16.02.2026 passed by this Court.

¶75

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitisation Application No. 363/2023 and the judgment and order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal Dy. No. 1561/2023 before are quashed .

¶76

The matter is remanded to the Debt Recovery Tribunal for being decided afresh after hearing submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, including any preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties, and dealing with the same in an appropriate manner. Meanwhile, the interim order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the DRT shall continue to remain in operation.

¶77

As the proceedings before the DRT were instituted in the year 2023, it is directed that the proceedings shall be conducted expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates at short intervals and the same should be decided with all possible expedition.

¶78

February 26, 2026 -Amit K-

¶79

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶80

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gunjit Kalra v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. Thru. Authorized Officer Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunjit Kalra v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. Thru. Authorized Officer Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 11 Others

Lara Dutta vs Animesh Anand

Asraful Hasan vs Shri Pramod Kumar Tiwari and 4 Others

Ramesh Kumar vs District Magistrate Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Surya Nath Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Smt. Sadhana Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Pratapgarh and 2 Others