Appeal against an ex-parte interim order restraining the appellant bank from taking possession of property mortgaged to another lender during a pending Section 9 Arbitration Act petition. The Division Bench declined to interfere with the interim order at this stage and requested expedited disposal of any vacation application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~61
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA .....Appellant
Through: Mr Ravi Raghunath Vachher & Mr Arjun R Vachher, Advs.
versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 09.02.2026
CM APPL. 8597/2026 [ for condonation of 5 days delay in re-filing the appeal ]
FAO(OS) (COMM) 22/2026 & CM APPL. 8596/2026
“ 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 2,
FAO(OS) (COMM) 22/2026
Page 1 of 3
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 11:16:00
3 and 4 have created a mortgage of the above said property vide memorandum for recording creation of mortgage by deposit and title deeds. The petitioner advanced a loan of Rs. 4.5 crores to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
3. Ms. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 failed to repay the loan amount, the petitioner issued notice under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act’) and has already filed an original application before the DRT-1, Delhi.
4. However, respondent No. 1 is another bank which may have advanced loan to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the same property has been mortgaged to the respondent No. 1.
5 . The petitioner has now come to know that respondent No. 1 has issued an auction notice in the newspaper, despite the property being mortgaged with the petitioner bank and the original title deeds of the property being in the possession of the petitioner.
6. Ms. Bhargava, learned counsel, relies on Section 11 of SARFAESI Act to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
7. For the said reasons, issue notice to the respondents through all modes, including electronic, on the petitioner taking steps within 2 weeks from today, returnable on 20.02.2026.
8. Prima facie, the petitioner has advanced a loan of about Rs. 4.5 crores which is outstanding and a sum of about Rs. 5 crores is due and payable as of today by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
9. In case the auction is permitted to be carried on, the petitioner will beleft remediless as the property which is mortgaged with the petitioner would be auctioned.
10. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and if interim orders are not passed, the petitioner would suffer irreparable damage and loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
11. For the said reasons, the respondent No. 1 is restrained from taking possession of property bearing No. 63, Block A, Sector 8, Dwarka and auctioning the property.”
FAO(OS) (COMM) 22/2026
Page 2 of 3
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 11:16:00
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 9, 2026 “SK”
FAO(OS) (COMM) 22/2026
Page 3 of 3
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2026 at 11:16:00
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Division Bench should interfere with an ex-parte interim order restraining a bank from taking possession of mortgaged property pending a Section 9 arbitration petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bank of Maharashtra
State Bank of India
Anil Kshetarpal
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
