Allowed

Ms Lasur Saree Centre v. the Vaidyanath Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

DRT29 Jul 2025SA/432/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a securitisation application filed by tenants who challenged the bank's illegal seizure of their shops. The court held the bank violated the SARFAESI Act by failing to prepare a mandatory inventory and issuing an improper notice. Possession was restored to the applicants.

What did the court decide?

The bank is directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the applicants on or before 07th August, 2025.

Ms Lasur Saree Centre versus the Vaidyanath Urban Co-Op Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 02.07.2025 Registered on: 03.07.2025 Decided on: 29.07.2025 Duration: Y M D 00 00 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J.R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.432/2025

¶3

M/s. Latur Saree Centre, Through Proprietor Mrs. Kantadevi Ashok Kumar Dhoot, Age : 64 Years, Occupation : Business, R/o Inani Complex, Main road, Latur – 413512.

¶4

M/s. Zee Mahasale, Through Proprietor Mr. Mahesh Nanuram Sharma, Age : 42 Years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Near Surya Idli Centre, Old Cloth Line, Latur413512

¶5

M/s. Nakshatra Cosmetics, Through Proprietor Mr. Naresh Maroti Gavate, Age : 33 Years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Maroti Shoe Mart, Shivaji Chowk, Shirur Tajband, district : Latur-413514

¶6

M/s. Sarita Agency, Through Proprietor Mr. Omprakash Govind Heda, Age : 30 Years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Govindji Heda, Road

¶7

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 1 of 25

¶8

No.1, Hatte Nagar, Loaltur-413512

¶9

M/s. Balmukund Bankatlal Somani, Through Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Vishnudas Somani, Age : 59 Years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Sweet Dream, Signal Camp, Behind Deshikendra School, Latur-413512

¶10

Versus 1. The Vaidyanath Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. Head Office : Mondha, ParliVaijinath, District : Beed-431515 Branch: Ganj Golai, Latur-413512

¶11

1. The Authorised Officer, The Vaidyanath Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. Head Office : Mondha, ParliVaijinath, District : Beed-431515

¶12

1. Mr. Rahul Pannalal Kalantri, Age: Major, Occupation : Business, Address : Ambika Pulses, 86/A, Market Yard, Latur-413512

¶13

1. Mr. Pannalal Raghunath Kalantri, Age: Major, Occupation : Business, Address : Ambika Pulses, 86/A, Market Yard

¶14

1. Mr. Hanumanprasad Murlidhar Bang, Age : Major, Occupation : Business, Address : Inani Building, Hanuman Chowk, Main Road, Latur-413512

¶15

1. Mrs. Sapna Sunilkumar Kalantri,

¶16

… Applicants

¶17

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 2 of 25

¶18

Age: Major, Occupation : Business, Address : Ambika Pulses, 86/A, Market Yard, Latur-413512

¶19

Mrs. Shrikanta Pannalal Kalanatri, Age: Major, Occupation : Business, Address : Ambika Pulses, 86/A, Market Yard, Latur-413512

¶20

APPEARANCES For the Applicants Mr. A.A. Yadkikar - Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. A.N. Irpatgire – Advocate For Respondent No.5 Mr. A.D. Soman - Advocate For Respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 None

¶21

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 29^th July, 2025)

¶22

This Securitization Application No.432/2025 under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as SARFAESI Act) has filed by the applicants with the averments that the applicants are neither borrowers nor guarantors for the alleged loan facilities availed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 from the respondent bank. The applicants are holding their respective shops situated at the alleged secured assets as tenants for the last several years and it was well within the

¶23

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 3 of 25

¶24

knowledge of the bank that they are running their respective business from their respective shops. The respondent bank has taken physical possession of the running shops of the applicants on 27.06.2025 without giving any notice as required under SARFAESI Act. The bank has shown a complete disregard to the procedure of taking physical possession of the mortgaged property. The respondent No.5 mortgaged the property as guarantor in lieu of the loan raised by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 wherein the shops are comprised and the applicants are doing their business.

¶25

It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 is having business of retail ladies garments and sarees, having one shop at ground floor and some portion of first floor since last more than 50 years. The applicant No.1 having stock of around Rs.1.00 Crore (Rupees One Crore only) in her shop and ten persons are working and even documents regarding Certificate of Registration are lying within the shop. Applicant No.2 is having business of retail cloth shop at the ground floor of the said property from the last seven years having stock of around Rs.1.00 Crore (Rupees One Crore only) in the said shop and employed eight persons

¶26

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 4 of 25

¶27

for this business. The Applicant No.3 is having retail business of Imitation Jwellery and Cosmetics etc. in the shop at ground floor of the said property from the last eight months having stock of around Rs.25 Lacs (Rupees TwentyFive Lacs only) and working with two persons. The Applicant No.4 is having business of Hardware and Tools etc. at first floor of the said property from the last 6 to 7 years and having stock of around Rs.1.00 Crore (Rupees One Crore only) in the said shop and working by engaging eight persons. The Applicant No.5 is having a retail business of Handloom material at the shop of second floor of this property from the last 6 to 7 years and having stock of around of Rs.50 Lacs (Rupees Fifty Lacs only) and working with engaging eight persons having GST Registration Certificate.

¶28

It is further submitted that in the evening at around 6.00 P.M. on 26.06.2025, the Manager of the Respondent Bank Latur Branch arrived at the shops of the applicants and pasted notice of possession on the said shops and the time for possession was fixed at 11.00 A.M. on the next date i.e. 27.06.2025. The applicants ought to have been given a minimum 15 days’ notice of possession and that through by

¶29

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 5 of 25

¶30

Court Commissioner appointed under Order 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank has arbitrarily and illegally had taken possession of the running shops of the applicants where stocks of Crores was lying and immediately thereafter the Branch Manager removed the notices pasted by him and a copy of Notice dated 26.06.2025 issued by the Branch Manager to the Applicant No.2 has produced on record. Not only the Court Commissioner and the Authorised Officer of the bank took the possession illegally on 27.06.2025 but they also proceeded to disconnect the electricity connection unauthorisedly. The Court Commissioner proceeded to break opened the locks and sealed all the shops of the applicants and no copy of Panchanama and inventory report was prepared and supplied to them.

¶31

It is further submitted that applicants enquired from the owner of the said shop namely Respondent No.5, Guarantor cum Mortgagor about the status of loan account who informed that the said account was regularized in the month of March-2025 and the same is now out of NPA category. However, the bank proceeded to take such drastic steps by misusing the process of the law without giving any

¶32

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 6 of 25

¶33

prior notice. The possession has been taken without 15 days’ prior notice and notices of possession were given by the Branch Manager before few hours of taking possession, who was not authorized to issue such notices. The Court Commissioner has failed to serve 15 days’ notice of possession to the applicants and act of taking physical possession is a severe misuse of process of law. No notice has been issued to the applicants by the Court Commissioner as per alleged orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur and all the proceedings conducted by the respondent bank are illegal, null and void and prayed for allowing present Securitisation Application and further respondent No.1 and 2 may be directed to restore the possession of the respective shops of the applicants so as to enable them to continue their business activities or any other equitable relief as it deemed fit by this Tribunal.

¶34

The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Bank) filed reply to the aforesaid Securitisation Application alleging therein that the relief sought by the applicants in Interlocutory Application are in the nature of final reliefs which cannot be granted at this interlocutory stage as the applicants seek direction to

¶35

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 7 of 25

¶36

the bank to hand-over the possession of the secured asset in question and permit them to continue their alleged business activities and seek appointment of the Court Commissioner for preparation of the inventory and handing over the possession. If such relief is granted it would cause prejudice to the rights of the respondent bank. The applicants are acting in collusion with the borrowers / guarantors as the borrowers / guarantors are well aware that they are not entitled for any relief and the applicants being third party is completely under cloud. The respondent bank through its Authorised Officer had duly intimated the present applicants on 17.10.2024 by written communication thereby clearly informing them that subject premises was mortgaged by the borrowers in favour of the respondent bank and the respondent bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act against the borrowers and guarantors for recovery of its dues. In the said notices, the bank had specifically called applicants to remove the articles, goods and belongings from the shop premises in view of the entire pending enforcement action and advising them not to create any obstruction in lawful process but the applicants continued to remain in unauthorized occupation

¶37

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 8 of 25

¶38

despite knowledge of SARFAESI measures. The present application moved by the applicant is nothing but intended to delay the lawful recovery process in collusion with the original borrowers. The applicants’ assertion of tenancy over the secured assets remains unsupported by any documentary evidence on record as there is no registered or un-registered agreement, no rent receipt, no electricity or water bills and no municipal taxes record has been produced by the applicants. The loan account of the borrowers was classified as NPA on 31.05.2024 and the bank issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 05.06.2024 to the borrowers and the guarantors. The bank has obtained order dated 17.03.2025 from Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.130/2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act whereby Shri R.P. Kuchme appointed as Court Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset and the bank has taken the possession lawfully as per the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the mortgagor has no right to create any lease without permission of the mortgagee and if such lease created post-mortgage is not

¶39

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 9 of 25

¶40

binding on the mortgagee and applicants do not possession any valid and legal rights. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 denied all other allegations of the Securitisation Application and dismissal of the main Securitisation Application as well as Interlocutory Application was prayed for.

¶41

The respondent No.5, Guarantor / Mortgagor filed separate Affidavit in Reply and supported the status of the applicants as his tenants over the suit premises. On 26.06.2025 at about 6.00 P.M., the Manager of the Respondent bank arrived at shops and they pasted the notice on the said shop and thereafter immediately removed by the bank personnel. The time of possession was scheduled on 26.06.2025 at 11.00 A.M. The respondent No.3 borrower namely Rahul Pannalal Kalantri deposited Rs.98,75,400/- (Rupees Ninety-Eight Lacs Seventy-Five Thousand Four Hundred only) in the loan account as details given in Para No.6 of the reply. In the like manner, borrower Respondent No.4 namely Pannalal Raghunath Kalantri has deposited Rs.1,42,35,900/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Two Lacs Thirty-Five Thousand and Nine Hundred only) in the loan account and in this manner both the borrowers have deposited Rs.2,41,11,300/- (Rupees Two

¶42

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 10 of 25

¶43

Crores Forty-One Lacs Eleven Thousand and Three Hundred only) in the loan accounts and the statement of account is also attached with the reply. After depositing sufficient amount, the account was out of NPA on 31.03.2025 and the respondent bank has totally violated the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶44

It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 bank has taken action under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Certificate under Section 101 was also obtained. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have also issued Notice under Section 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for possession of the properties of the borrowers as per order dated 15.07.2025. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 having sufficient property of the borrowers as a guarantee but deliberately the bank has initiated the action against the Respondent No.5 being the guarantor / mortgagor. The Court Commissioner has not made compliance of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Order dated 17.03.2025 as the Court Commissioner did not issue any possession notice to the guarantors / borrowers as well as the applicants and notice has been issued on 26.06.2025 by the bank which is illegal. The respondent No.5 has also

¶45

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 11 of 25

¶46

pleaded that action taken by the bank is illegal and not as per settled principles of the SARFAESI Act. After depositing the amount, issuing Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, has become infructuous and prayed for allowing the Securitisation Application of the applicants and possession taken by the respondent bank may be restored to the applicants.

¶47

Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the relief sought by the applicants are the same in interim relief as in the main Securitisation Application and reply has been filed by the respondent bank as well as by the respondent No.5 and prayed for deciding the main Securitisation Application on merits.

¶48

This submission of the learned counsel for the respondent bank has not been opposed by the counsel of the applicants as well as by the counsel for the respondent No.5 and they have also agreed that the main Securitisation Application may be disposed of finally on merits after considering their reply and submissions as well as documents on record.

¶49

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 12 of 25

¶50

The learned counsel for the applicants argued that all the five applicants are tenants of respondent No.5 who is guarantor / mortgagor of the loan raised by the borrowers being respondent No.3 and 4. It was further argued that the applicants have produced the available documents showing their tenancy for a long period and the tenancy of the applicants have been admitted by the respondent bank in notices placed on record. It was further argued that no notice was given to the applicants despite the fact that it was well within the knowledge of the respondent bank that they are tenants in possession over the suit property. It was further argued that even some tenants were in possession from the year 1996 and 2018 i.e. before the mortgage deed which was executed on 26.11.2021. It was further argued that the notice was issued by the Branch Manager on 26.06.2025 and not by the Court Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Order dated 17.03.2025 and possession was taken illegally in a very hurried manner only with the intention to destroy the business of the applicants / tenants. It was further argued that no Panchanama or inventory was prepared as per rules of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule 2002 (hereinafter

¶51

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 13 of 25

¶52

referred as Rules). It was further argued that even no inventory was prepared as per Appendix-2 of the Rule and videography, if any, conducted has not been produced on record. It was also argued that the possession of the shops of the applicants have been taken by the respondent bank in a totally illegal manner and the main Securitisation Application of the applicants is liable to be allowed and possession is liable to be restored to the applicants as they can be dispossessed only by following provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶53

It was argued on behalf of the respondent No.5 that the applicants are his tenants and he is guarantor / mortgagor of the loan raised by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. It was further argued that the respondent No.5 has produced on record the statement of account of both the borrowers alongwith reply as Exhibit R-1 and R-2 respectively. He further argued that as per statement of account, both the accounts were regular as per repayment schedule Exhibit R-3 and there was no occasion for the respondent bank to take possession of the property of the guarantor / mortgagor. It was further argued that even the respondent Nos.1 and 2 bank has taken action under Section 101 of

¶54

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 14 of 25

¶55

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and have obtained certificate and they have also issued notice under Section 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for possession of the properties of the borrowers as per order Exhibit R-4 dated 15.07.2025. It was further argued that the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not issued any notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the borrowers as well as guarantors on 01.06.2024 and the bank has given only notice to the tenants on 26.06.2025 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have illegally taken possession of his tenants in violation of the law.

¶56

It was argued on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (bank) that the possession of the secured assets has been taken by the bank as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. The Court Commissioner was appointed as per the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 17.03.2025 and Advocate R.P. Kuchme as Court Commissioner proceeded to take possession of the secured assets on 27.06.2025 and now the applicants have filed this application in collusion with the borrowers as well as respondent No.5, guarantor / mortgagor. It was also argued that the applicants have not

¶57

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 15 of 25

¶58

produced any document regarding tenancy and they are not established as tenants in lacking of the documents and even otherwise guarantor / mortgagor has no right to create tenancy during subsistence of the mortgage deed without the permission of the bank and if tenancy was created that is hit by Section 65 A of the Transfer of Property Act and reliance was placed on Judgment Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal V. Central Bank of India and Anr. (2019) ibelaw.in 129 Supreme Court .

¶59

It was further argued on behalf of the respondent bank that the Court Commissioner prepared Panchanama and Inventory on 27.06.2025 and the same has been produced on record as per Pursis Exhibit-7 and from the proceedings of Panchanama and inventory as well as possession receipt it is established that the possession has been taken by the bank in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the applicants are not entitled for restoration of possession and the Interim relief Application moved by them for the main relief of restoration of possession is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the main Securitisation Application of the applicants.

¶60

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 16 of 25

¶61

After having heard both the sides and going through the material on record, I am of the considered view that present Securitisation Application moved by the applicants is liable to be allowed for the reasons recorded herein after.

¶62

REASONS

¶63

The applicants have produced on record copy of notice dated 26.06.2025 addressed to Applicant No.2 M/s. Zee Mahasale Through Proprietor alleging therein that in pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, the possession of the mortgaged property will be handed over to the bank on 27.06.2025 at 11.00 A.M. and directed the Proprietor to remove the articles available in the shop. This Letter was issued by the Branch Manager. Therefore, the possession of the Applicant No.2 has been admitted by the bank as per this letter dated 26.06.2025 attached at Page No.46 of the Securitisation Application.

¶64

In order to prove the tenancy of the applicants, the applicant No.1 has produced Udyam Registration Certificate dated 06.12.2013 showing date of commencement of the business as on 11.04.1996 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Micro, |Small and

¶65

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 17 of 25

¶66

Medium Enterprises in the name of Latur Saree Centre. This document proves that the applicant No.1 is tenant since 1996 over the shops in his occupation. The applicant No.2 has produced copy of Form F whereby he has found to having cloth business from 12.08.2018 and this document has been placed at Page No.26 to 29 of the Securitisation Application. The applicant No.3 has produced copy of Form No. F regarding M/s. Nakshatra Cosmetics that he is doing business in the name of M/s. Nakshatra Cosmetics. The applicant No.4 has also produced on record copy of Form-C under Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Rules 2018 that M/s. Sarita Agencies is doing business of Hardware and Tools from 13.02.2021. In the like manner the applicant No.5 is also doing business as per GST Registration Certificate produced at Page No.38 of the Securitisation Application. The applicant No.5 has also produced copy of Insurance Policy dated 07.01.2025 issued at the business address. If these documents are read in corroboration with Purshis Exhibit-7, it is established that applicants were in possession over the suit property as tenants of mortgagor / guarantor (Respondent No.5). In Panchanama, the reference of all the tenants have

¶67

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 18 of 25

¶68

specifically mentioned and relevant part of Panchanama is as under:

¶69

“ PANCHNAMA - We, the panchas (witnesses) today dated 27.06.2025 attended in person at about 12.00 in morning, at, within the limits of Latur Municipal Corporation, Tq. Dist. Latur, out of Gat No.9590, Private Plot No.1, Total area 204.3 Sq.m., alongwith construction thereon, its boundaries:

¶70

East : Land of Hanchate, West : Govt. Road, South : Road, North : Land of Kankal.

¶71

Attended the above mentioned property, at the exact site in person and the said panchanama was started in our presence. In the said mentioned property, on the ground floor, in the presence of the proprietor of Latur Saree Centre, Anup Dhoot as wsell as the worker who were present there named Shivaji Sopan Alandkar, Hipparsoga and Avin ash Mahadeo Bhosle, Bhatangli and Zee Mahasale Proprietor Mahesh Nanuram Sharma, Naresh Maruti Gawate, their shop Nakshatra Cosmetics and on the first floor Sarita Agencies, Prop. Omprakash Govind Hedda, his hardware shop and gowns of women and other clothes, Shop of Somani Rajesh on second floor and on the third floor, open premises duly plastered and in incomplete construction, and there is terrace on the 5^th floor. The above mentioned shopkeeper has himself delivered the possession of the shop in our presence and while the said proceeding was continuing, Hon’ble Assistant Police Inspector Sampat Kande Sir, Police Head Constable Nagnath Narale, M.P.H. Anrage 1504 and authorized officer of bank and employees peon attended and have done the videography of all the proceedings ”.

¶72

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 19 of 25

¶73

From the above documents of the applicants, Pursis of the respondent bank Exhibit-7 and particularly above Panchanama, it is established that the applicants were tenants of the respondent No.5 at the time of taking possession by the bank.

¶74

The applicants have produced on record the Letter / Notice dated 26.06.2025 as Exhibit-A-6, Page No.46 to 48 of the Securitisation Application which was issued on 26.06.2025 and possession was taken on the very next date i.e. 27.06.2025 in a hurried way. More-so, this Notice dated 26.06.2025 was issued by the Branch Manager and not by the Court Commissioner. It may be noted here that even the respondent bank has not produced copy of notices issued to the borrowers / guarantors before taking possession of the suit property as the respondent No.5 in his reply as well as during course of arguments, has denied serving of notice to him as well as other guarantors and borrowers. Non-production of possession notice by the respondent bank reflects that only a Letter / Notice was issued by the Branch Manager on 26.06.2025 and on the very next date, the possession was taken which is apparently illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶75

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 20 of 25

¶76

On perusal of the Pursis Exhibit-7 produced by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (bank) reflects that no inventory was prepared as per Rule 4 of Rules 2002. It was necessary for the Court Commissioner or the Authorised Officer of the bank to prepare the inventory. After taking possession under Sub-rule 1 of Rule 4, the Authorised Officer shall make or cause to be made an inventory of the property as nearly as possible in the form given in Appendix-II to these rules and deliver or cause to be delivered, a copy of such inventory to the borrower or to any person entitled to receive on behalf of the borrower. The possession was taken of five shops by the respondent bank and no inventory has been prepared as per Rule 4(2) r/with Appendix-II of the Rules of 2002. Therefore, there is total violation of Rule 4 of Security Interest Rules of 2002 as no inventory pertaining to any of the shops was prepared by the Authorised Officer as well as by the Court Commissioner. In this case even Court Commissioner has not properly executed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur dated 17.03.2025, otherwise in which manner, possession has been taken was not possible for the bank even without issuing any notice to the applicants. At least 15 days’ notice was required to be

¶77

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 21 of 25

¶78

issued to the applicants in the circumstances when the bank was sending the letter to the tenants for vacation of the premises. More-so, the possession notices if issued to the borrowers / guarantors / mortgagors have not been produced on record by the bank, which were necessary to ascertain the validity of the possession proceedings. Therefore there is total violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder as regards the taking possession of the five shops by the bank in this case.

¶79

The respondent No.5 has produced on record the Statement of Account of both the borrowers alongwith reply filed by him. The borrower namely Rahul Pannalal Kalantri, had deposited Rs.98,75,400/(Rupees Ninety-Eight Lacs Seventy-Five Thousand Four Hundred only) from 22.01.2025 to 01.07.2025 as detailed in Para No.6 of the reply as well as in statement of account Exhibit R-1. As per repayment schedule, as on 31.07.2025, the account of the respondent No.3 was regular. In the like manner, as per the statement of account of the respondent No.4 borrower namely Pannalal Raghunath Kalantri, he deposited Rs.1,42,35,900/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Two Lacs ThirtyFive Thousand and Nine Hundred only) in loan account

¶80

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 22 of 25

¶81

from 22.01.2025 to 04.07.2025 and as per repayment schedule Exhibit R-3, this account was also regular on 31.07.2025. When the borrowers respondent No.3 and 4 had deposited Rs.2,41,11,300/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty-One Lacs Eleven Thousand Three Hundred only), it was necessary for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (bank) to issue possession notices to the mortgagor / guarantor after taking into consideration the status of the loan account as the account was declared NPA on 31.03.2025 as per the allegations of the bank whereas both the accounts almost become regular on 30.06.2025 and 31.07.2025. Hence, dislodging the tenants of the mortgagor / guarantor (respondent No.5) in the given facts and circumstances is not justified at all.

¶82

Another fact may be noted that the respondent bank has already taken action under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Certificate under Section 101 has also been obtained and thereafter the bank has also issued Notice under Section 107 of the Act for possession of the properties of the borrowers vide Order dated 15.07.2025 Exhibit R-4. As per perusal of order Exhibit R-4 dated 15.07.2025, the order for recovery against the borrowers has

¶83

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 23 of 25

¶84

already been allowed on 27.01.2021 but the respondent bank is not proceeding further with the actions already issued by the Co-operative Authorities to realize the amount from the borrowers or from the immovable properties of the borrowers. What may be the hidden objective of the bank to dislodge the tenants of the guarantor / mortgagor, (respondent No.5) whereas the bank failed to execute the order dated 27.01.2021 passed in their favour by the authorities under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, the intention of the respondent bank is not to realize the amount from the borrowers if any amount is overdue or outstanding but with a malafide motive they had taken possession of the applicants / tenants of guarantor / mortgagor (respondent No.5) even without following the due process of law. The right of the tenant is protected in the given facts and circumstances of this case in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment Vishal N. Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and Ors. AIR 2016 Supreme Court 530.

¶85

I have gone through the Judgment in case of Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal V. Central Bank of India and Anr. (2019) ibelaw.in 129 Supreme Court (supra) , the law laid

¶86

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 24 of 25

¶87

down in this Judgment has no bearing on the facts of the present case and even this judgment is distinguishable on the facts. More-so, the possession has been taken by the bank in violation of the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder as discussed above.

¶88

For the reasons recorded above, the present Securitisation Application No.432/2025 is liable to be allowed.

¶89

In view of above observations, I pass the following order.

¶90

ORDER

¶91

(A) Securitisation Application No.432/2025 is hereby allowed.

¶92

(B) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Bank) are hereby directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the applicants on or before 07^th August, 2025 positively.

¶93

(C) Accordingly, all the pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stands disposed of in terms of the present judgment.

¶94

(D) File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.

¶95

Sd/-

¶96

Pronounced in open Sd/Court. (Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Date : 29.07.2025. Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶97

[SBJ] (SA No.432/2025) Page 25 of 25

Ms Lasur Saree Centre v. the Vaidyanath Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Lasur Saree Centre v. the Vaidyanath Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekhar Builders and Developers versus Godavari Laxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Shambhavi Weld Tech versus Punjab National Bank

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus Ajay

Jyoti Angad More versus Dcb Bank Limited

Arun Bhausaheb Kadam versus Aspire Home Finance corporation Limited

Mandakini Dilipkumar Gaikwad versus Nido Home Finance Limited