Debts Recovery Tribunal directed a housing finance company to return property possession to an auction purchaser within two weeks, citing that the bank had validly auctioned the mortgaged property to the applicant.
Respondent Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. directed to give back possession to auction purchaser within two weeks.
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 17
Case No.SA/259/2024
SH BASANT RAJ BIRLA Vs. BANK OF BARODA
Date: 02.07.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Kailash Tailor, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Harjeet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
Shri Udit Purohit, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 along with Sh. Amit Bhardwaj, Authorized officer of Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd.
In this matter, the applicant has purchased the property from Bank of Baroda in public auction and physical possession of the property was also handover to him. Thus, he became owner of the property.
Counsel for the respondent bank submits that Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. claiming their charge on the property by virtue of sale deed dated 31.01.2022 which is almost two years after their mortgaged which wasdone on 13.02.2020. The auction which was conducted by Bank of Baroda was duly notified, published and if Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. had any objection, they could have very well moved a Securitization Application before the Tribunal for stay of that auction. They cannot go and break open the locks and take the possession from the auction purchaser who is legally enjoying the property. The counsel for the Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. submits that they have taken possession from the person who had executed the sale deed and when the Tribunal questioned, how they could do so, he says that he stands corrected that we have taken from the borrower. Nothing is being on record, then dispute between Bank of Baroda and Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd., there is a judgment of Hon’ble DRAT, Delhi in the matter of Central Bank of India vs. Pratima Jain wherein the Central Bank of India and Union Bank of India were claiming mortgage and similarly, Central Bank of India has break/ open the locks and taken possession from Pratima Jain who has purchased the property from the Union Bank of India and possession was handed to the applicant. Thus, the auction purchaser is entitled for possession as held in above orders of Hon’ble DRAT, Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. is directed to give back the possession to auction purchaser within two weeks from today.
Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. will be entitled to claim with Bank of Baroda and for any charge over the property.
Counsel for both the parties held that original title deeds are with them, thus, it become very desirous that they either go for the arbitration or Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. file a case against Bank of Baroda for recovery of their dues.
Original title deed of the property is with the Bank of Baroda, therefore, the Bank of Baroda has handed over the title deeds to the applicants in the Tribunal
In view of above, this Securitization Application stands disposed of with liberty to the parties to move appropriate application in case of any exigency.
File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Bank of India vs. Pratima JainReferred¶10
Central Bank of India vs. Pratima Jain
Sh Basant Raj Birla
Bank of Baroda
Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd.
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
