Dismissed

Durahomes Builders And Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Reliance asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

DRT21 Nov 2025SA/466/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal addressed a securitisation application challenging possession actions against property claimed by the applicant. The court held that since the disputed premises were distinct from the mortgaged asset and involved title/boundary disputes, the matter was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act, which applies only to enforcement actions against the secur

What the court decided

AI extract

Durahomes Builders And Developer Pvt. Ltd. versus Reliance… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶5

Date of Institution: 13.02.2023 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025

¶6

M/s. Durhomes Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Having address at 109, Embassy Center, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 through it authorized representative Mr. Abulaas Siddiqui

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (In it’s capacity as Trustee of RARC 051 (KJSE SME) Trust 11^th Floor, North side, R-Tech Park, Eastern express Highway, Goregaon (East).

¶10

M/s Purvi Metals Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.95/96/129, Jawahar Co-op Industrial Estate Kamothe, Panvel, Navi Mumbai-410 219 DistrictRaigad.

¶11

Mr Rangbahadur Sahjeet Singh (Directors), Flat No.1003, C-8, Sheth Residency B.K. Road, Gavanpada, Mulund(East), Mumbai-400 081

¶12

Mr. Brijesh Pratap Rangbahadur Singh (Directors), Flat No.1001, C- 8, Sheth Residency B.K. Road,

¶13

Page 1 of 10

¶14

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶15

Gavanpada, Mulund-East, Mumbai400081

¶16

Shah Garments Through its proprietor Mr. Shahil Shah, Having its registered address at 2^nd floor, Matru Chhaya Building, 9th Babulnath Road, Above Ruxmani …Respondents Hospital, Mumbai-400007

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant	: Mr Sidharth Samantaray and
	Ms Suparna Holamagi - Advocates
For Respondent No.1	: Mr Rajesh Nagori, Mr Vinay
	Deshpande, Ms Shobha Chavan and Ms Aneri Shah i/b M/s. V.
	Deshpande & Co. – Advocates
For Respondent Nos.2 to 5	None

¶19

Final Order

¶20

(1) The Applicant has preferred this Securitisation Application No.466 of 2025 under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter as referred to as “SARFAESI Act, 2002” for brevity) challenging the action taken by the Respondent No.1 vide possession notice of concerned Tehsildar dated 07.09.2022 and the order passed by the District Magistrate, Thane

¶21

Page 2 of 10

¶22

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶23

under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 01.07.2022 in respect to the property namely (1) Industrial Gala No.1, Industrial Gala No.2, Industrial Gala No.3 on the Ground Floor and Industrial Gala No.101, Industrial Gala No.102, Industrial Gala No.103 on the 1^st floor, Building No. KL-1 in Shree Raj Laxmi, Apparel & Industrial Park, Survey No.81, Hissa No.6, Village Pogaon, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane along with land beneath the said Industrial Galas with right to construct G+2 upper floor and (2) Industrial Gala No.104, Industrial Gala No.105 on the 1^st floor, Building No.KL-1 in Shree Raj Laxmi, Apparel & Industrial Park, Survey No.81, Hissa No.6, Village Pogaon, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane along with right to construct 1 upper floor (hereinafter referred to as “the said property or secured assets”) and the subsequent measures taken with respect to taking the physical possession of the said property.

¶24

The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

¶25

(2) That M/s. Purvi Metals Private Limited i.e. Respondent No.2 through its Directors and Guarantors have availed various credit facility against security interest from time to time from the Kalyan Janata Bank Limited who vide Deed of Assignment dated 27.07.2018 has assigned of all their rights pertaining to the financial assets of the Borrower, M/s Purvi Metals Private Ltd. to Reliance

¶26

Page 3 of 10

¶27

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶28

ARC against primary security i.e. the Secured assets in the name of Mr. Brijeshpratap Rangbahadur Singh for an amount of Rs.230.33 Lacs at the rate of 13% per annum (floating) repayable in 84 EMIs commencing after one month from date of disbursement under Term Loan – I (Mortgage) OMTLN/32 and Rs.125 Lacs at the rate of 12% per annum (floating) repayable in 84 EMIs commencing after one month from date of disbursement under New Term Loan-II (Mortgage) for additional working Capital requirements and the said loans in guaranteed by Rangbahadur Sahjeet Sing, Respondent No.3 and Brijeshpratap Rangbahadur Singh, Respondent No.4. (3) That the Borrowers neglected and failed to repay the said loan and has committed default. Their loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The Respondent No.1 initiated action under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 against the secured asset mortgaged by the borrower, and thereafter approached the District Magistrate, Thane under Section 14 seeking assistance for taking possession of the said secured property. The District Magistrate passed an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 01.07.2022. According to the Applicant, the notices issued pursuant to the said order were pasted on premises which stand on different CTS and Survey numbers

¶29

Page 4 of 10

¶30

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶31

and do not form part of the mortgaged property. The Applicant claims independent occupation of those premises on the basis of its own title documents. The Respondent Bank, on the other hand, states that it has proceeded only against the mortgaged property described in the registered mortgage deed and has not claimed any right, title or interest in respect of the premises referred to by the Applicant.

¶32

(4) The Applicant states that no coercive measures were taken for a long period, until the Respondent Bank filed Writ Petition No. 24475 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court seeking implementation of the Ld. Magistrate’s order dated 01.07.2022 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Applicant was not made a party to that Writ Petition. By order dated 01.08.2025, the Hon’ble High Court directed the Court Commissioner to comply with the order passed under Section 14 within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said order.

¶33

(5) The Applicant further states that on 19.09.2025, the concerned Tehsildar, along with the Bank Officers, attempted to take possession and sealed the premises without notice under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Applicant submits that the premises were in the possession of its Licensee under a registered Leave and License

¶34

Page 5 of 10

¶35

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶36

Agreement of 2021 and that the Licensee was dispossessed during this operation.

¶37

(6) That aggrieved by these events, the Applicant filed Writ Petition No.12438 of 2025. The Hon’ble High Court, by order dated 23.09.2025, directed this Tribunal to decide the present Securitisation Application within six weeks with liberty to the Licensee to seek restoration of possession. The Licensee accordingly filed Securitisation Application No.431 of 2025. Based on consent minutes between the Licensee and Respondent No.1, the Bank restored possession to the Licensee for a temporary period, subject to the outcome of the present Securitisation Application.

¶38

(7) That the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that the premises occupied by the Applicant stand on independent CTS and Survey numbers which are different from the property mortgaged by the borrower in favour of the Respondent Bank. It is submitted that the possession notices issued by the Tehsildar were affixed on the Applicant’s property, although the Applicant has no connection with the borrower or with the mortgaged asset.

¶39

(8) It is contended that the Applicant is in lawful occupation of the property on the basis of separate title documents and that the Bank should not disturb its possession. The Ld. Advocate submits that the Applicant has not received any notice

¶40

Page 6 of 10

¶41

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶42

under Section 13(2) or Section 13(4) and that the Bank’s action is therefore arbitrary.

¶43

(9) That the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant further argues that the Bank may have acted on a mistaken identity of the property and prays that the Tribunal restrain the Respondent Bank from taking any steps against the premises occupied by the Applicant. Hence, S.A. No.466 of 2025 should be allowed with cost.

¶44

(10) That the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Bank vehemently opposes and submits that the secured asset consists of the property expressly described in the mortgage deed executed by the borrower and that all measures taken under Section 13 and Section 14 pertain only to that mortgaged property.

¶45

(11) That the Ld. Advocate further argues that the Respondent Bank has never claimed any right, title or interest in respect of the premises asserted by the Applicant. Ld. Advocate points out that the Applicant itself has not challenged the validity of the mortgage or any measure taken against the secured asset. The issues raised by the Applicant are in the nature of a title dispute concerning identity, boundaries and demarcation of land parcels, which cannot be determined in proceedings under Section 17. Ld. Advocate further states that if the Applicant believes the Bank has encroached beyond the mortgaged property, the

¶46

Page 7 of 10

¶47

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶48

proper remedy lies before the appropriate civil forum. Hence, the Securitisation Application No.466 of 2025 deserves to be rejected. Hence, prays for rejection of the S.A. with cost.

¶49

Conclusion

¶50

(12) Heard both Ld. Advocates at length and perused the record keeping in mind the submissions made.

¶51

(13) In the present case, the Applicant has not challenged the creation of the mortgage by the borrower in favour of the Respondent Bank. The Applicant has not questioned the validity of the Section 13(2) notice, the measures taken under Section 13(4) or the affidavit filed before the District Magistrate. There is no allegation that the Bank’s enforcement against the mortgaged property suffers from any legal infirmity.

¶52

(14) That the absence of any challenge to the mortgage or to the measures undertaken against the actual secured asset makes it clear that the grievance of the Applicant does not arise out of the enforcement of the security interest.

¶53

(15) That the Respondent Bank has categorically stated that it has taken steps only in respect of the mortgaged property and that it has not claimed the premises asserted by the Applicant. The Applicant has not produced any material to show that the Bank has asserted any right over its premises or taken any measure specifically directed at it.

¶54

Page 8 of 10

¶55

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶56

(16) That when the secured creditor does not claim the Applicant’s property, no lis exists under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for adjudication. There is no action of the Bank against the Applicant which can be examined under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶57

(17) In fact, the dispute placed before this Tribunal concerns the identity and extent of the Applicant’s property in relation to the mortgaged property. The Applicant relies on separate conveyances and documents to assert independent title. The Respondent Bank relies on the mortgage deed and the description of the secured asset.

¶58

(18) It is pertinent to note that resolving such issues would require examination of title chains, survey plans, municipal records and boundary demarcation. These are matters which require detailed evidence and adjudication by a civil court or by revenue court. The proceedings under Section 17 are limited to examining the legality and validity of the measures taken by a secured creditor against the secured asset and do not permit adjudication of disputes of title between private parties.

¶59

(19) That in view of the present nature of the dispute, the Applicant’s grievance cannot be considered within the limited jurisdiction of this Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶60

Page 9 of 10

¶61

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025

¶62

(20) It is significant in the matter that the Applicant has not challenged the mortgage or any measure taken in respect of the secured asset. The Respondent Bank has not asserted any claim over the Applicant’s property. The issues raised relate to title, boundary and demarcation which lie outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶63

(21) It is clear crystal in the facts and circumstances of the case that no cause of action arises under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶64

(22) Both parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of any dispute concerning title, boundaries or demarcation.

¶65

(23) Resultantly, the Securitisation Application No.466 of 2025 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(Harish Kumar Kaushik) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶68

Radhika

¶69

Page 10 of 10

Durahomes Builders And Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Reliance asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Durahomes Builders And Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Reliance asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sachi Molding Solutions Private Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Vaibhav

Canara Bank versus Skr Industries

M/S Conspel Construction Private Limited versus Deustche Bank

Ms Padmavati Maitri Corporation versus Indusind Bank Limited

Ms Take Care Medica versus Deustche Bank