Dismissed

Mentor Home Loans India Ltd. v. Abhishek Bhageria

DRT7 Jul 2026MA/66/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of two Miscellaneous Applications challenging a final debt adjudication order. The bank sought to recall the order and correct a typographical error regarding restoration, arguing procedural impropriety. The Respondent argued abuse of process, limitation, and lack of liberty to pursue fresh applications beyond the High Court's granted review maintenance. The court dismissed t

What did the court decide?

Applications disposed of. Respondent FI directed to proceed under Securitization Act. File consigned to record.

Mentor Home Loans India Ltd. versus Abhishek Bhageria — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIMAL GUPTA

¶3

MA No. 135/2025 IN SA/282/2021

¶4

MENTOR HOME LOANS INDIA LTD, MENTOR HOUSE, GOVIND MARG, SETHI COLONY, 302004, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶5

………Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

ABHISHEK BHAGERIA S/O LATE MR. SUSHIL BGHAGERIA R/O PLOT NO. B-143, SAKET COLONY, OPPOSITE KOHINOOR PARK, NEAR ADARSH NAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT JAIPUR302004, RAJASTHAN.

¶8

SMT. SAVITA BHAGERIA W/O MR. SUSHIL BHAGERIA R/O PLOT NO B-143, SAKET COLONY, OPPOSITE KOHINOOR PARK, NEAR ADARSH NAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT JAIPUR-302004, RAJASTHAN.

¶9

SMT. LAKSHMI BHAGERIA W/O MR. ABHISHEK BHAGERIA R/O PLOT NO B-143, SAKET COLONY, OPPOSITE KOHINOOR PARK, NEAR ADARSH NAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT JAIPUR302004, RAJASTHAN.

¶10

..….. Respondents

¶11

MA No. 66/2025 IN RA 31/2023

¶12

MENTOR HOME LOANS INDIA LTD, MENTOR HOUSE, GOVIND MARG, SETHI COLONY, 302004, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶13

………Applicants

¶14

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026. cm

¶15

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶16

Versus

¶17

ABHISHEK BHAGERIA S/O LATE MR. SUSHIL BGHAGERIA R/O PLOT NO. B-143, SAKET COLONY, OPPOSITE KOHINOOR PARK, NEAR ADARSH NAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT JAIPUR- 302004, RAJASTHAN.

¶18

SMT. SAVITA BHAGERIA W/O MR. SUSHIL BHAGERIA R/O PLOT NO B-143, SAKET COLONY, OPPOSITE KOHINOOR PARK, NEAR ADARSH NAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT JAIPUR302004, RAJASTHAN.

¶19

SMT. LAKSHMI BHAGERIA W/O MR. ABHISHEK BHAGERIA R/O PLOT NO B-143, SAKET COLONY, OPPOSITE KOHINOOR PARK, NEAR ADARSH NAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT JAIPUR-302004, RAJASTHAN.

¶20

..….. Respondents

¶21

Present:

¶22

Shri Alok Mathur, Counsel for the applicant

¶23

Shri Akarsh Mathur, Counsel for the Respondent

¶24

(Final Order)

¶25

(07.07.2026)

¶26

Counsel for the M.A. Applicant has filed this Misc. Application 135/2025 on the following grounds: -

¶27

a) It is submitted that the final order passed in S.A. No. 282/2021 by the Hon’ble Tribunal on 05.08.2023, by which the S.A. was decided, disposed of, and consigned to record, and the Respondent’s notice under Section 13(2) was quashed.

¶28

¶29

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶30

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶31

b) Thereafter, M.A. No. 194/2023 was filed on 14.09.2023 and was decided on 06.11.2023. The Respondent filed a detailed reply raising various legal objections. One of the main objections was that the M.A. could not be entertained without first restoring S.A. No. 282/2021, as there were no securitization proceedings pending in the loan account for which M.A. No. 194/2023 could be filed, nor could -any stay be granted therein.

¶32

c) It is submitted that without considering the serious legal objections, the order in M.A. No. 194/2023 even proceeded to adjudicate upon the debt by disallowing several valid charges of the Respondent without any factual or legal basis.

¶33

d) It is submitted that the said adjudication in M.A. No. 194/2023 suffered from a serious omission of legal position—namely, that in the absence of restoration of the S.A., any - adjudication of the whole issue was legally inappropriate. This legal position was not considered, resulting in a manifest error apparent on the face of the record.

¶34

e) It is submitted that in this matter, R.A. No. 31/2023 was filed and disposed of by the Hon'ble DRT on 12/02/2025 on the ground that a writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. However, in this order there is a typographical error for which M.A. No. 66/2025 has been filed and is pending, with the next date being 29/08/2025.

¶35

f) It is submitted that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18033/2023 (Mentor Home Loans India Ltd. vs. Abhishek Bhageria & Ors.) is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur, and shall be withdrawn if this. MA. is allowed.

¶36

Counsel for the M.A. Applicant also filed Misc. Application 66/2025 on the following grounds: -

¶37

a) It is submitted that the Final Order passed IN R. A. NO. 31 /2023 passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal on 12.02.2025 by which it was disposed by the Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶38

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶39

¶40

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶41

b) It is submitted that the RA Applicant submitted in writing in the entire RA and specifically in Para Number 2 & Para Number 8 of the RA and also during the oral submission that without restoring the SA Debt was adjudicated but, in the order, due to typographic error it was written that "SA was restored in its original position and debts was not adjudicated". It is humbly submitted that this is not the factual position and nor it was pleaded orally nor submitted in writing before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶42

c) It is submitted that due to this typographic error the factual position and meaning of the entire RA and the order becomes contradictory & incorrect factually.

¶43

d) Therefore, it is humbly submitted that this typographic error may be rectified in the interest of justice to protect the rights of RA Applicant and It may be written that without restoration of SA Debt was adjudicated in the order of RA/31/2023.

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent has filed written statement in M.A. 135/2025 and submitted that the present MA deserve to be dismissed in limine as being wholly misconceived, not maintainable in law, barred by limitation, hit by the principles of res subjudice , and constituting a gross abuse of the process of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶45

It is submitted that the Applicant Bank is repeatedly attempting to reopen issues which have already been adjudicated and have attained finality. The present proceedings are merely another attempt to indirectly secure reliefs which have either already been declined or are presently pending consideration before this Hon'ble Tribunal in separate proceedings.

¶46

It is an admitted position that the Applicant Bank had earlier preferred Review Application No. RA/31/2023 seeking review of the order dated 06.11.2023.

¶47

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶48

¶49

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶50

It is submitted that the said Review Application came to be disposed of by this Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2025 wherein this Hon’ble Tribunal recorded as under:

¶51

" In this matter, Ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the SA restored to its original position, but debts was not adjudicated and they are preferred to file writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court which is pending. In view of this, this review application stands disposed of subject to any orders from the Hon'ble High Court ."

¶52

Thus, the review proceedings already stood concluded and no further orders remained pending therein.

¶53

It is submitted that the Applicant Bank sought withdrawal of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18033/2023 before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and vide order dated 21.11.2025, the Hon'ble High Court specifically granted liberty only as follows:

¶54

" 1. Matter comes up on an application (IA No.2/2025) filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking withdrawal of the present writ petition.

¶55

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instruction from his client, seeks permission to withdraw the present civil writ petition with liberty to pursue the review application filed before the learned Tribunal.

¶56

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is allowed.

¶57

4. Accordingly, the present civil writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty, as prayed for.

¶58

5. The stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of ."

¶59

The language employed by the Hon'ble High Court is clear and unambiguous. Hence, the liberty granted was limited to the extent of the review application filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶60

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶61

¶62

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶63

It is submitted that it is pertinent to note that the liberty was confined exclusively to the already filed Review Application No. RA/31/2023. Furthermore, as per the order dated 21.11.2025, the Hon'ble High Court never granted liberty:

¶64

a) to file fresh miscellaneous applications;

¶65

b) to institute fresh interlocutory applications;

¶66

c) to seek recall of the order dated 06.11.2023 through independent proceedings; or

¶67

d) to bypass the review proceedings and seek identical reliefs through collateral applications.

¶68

Therefore, any proceedings beyond the scope of Review Application RA/31/2023 are wholly outside the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court.

¶69

It is submitted that even after obtaining the aforesaid liberty from the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 21.11.2025, the MA Applicant Bank admittedly did not file any application seeking restoration, revival or reopening of RA/31/2023.

¶70

It is submitted that in the absence of restoration of the said Review Application bearing RA/31/2023 itself, the Applicant Bank cannot indirectly seek identical reliefs through MA No. 66/2025, MA No. 135/2025 or the IA in MA 66/2025.

¶71

It is submitted that the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court could only be exercised within the review proceedings themselves. The Applicant Bank cannot enlarge the scope of the High Court's order by initiating independent proceedings seeking substantially the same relief.

¶72

It is submitted that the IA in MA 66/2025 substantially seeks the recall of the order dated 06.11.2023. It is pertinent to mention that even assuming without admitting that such a prayer was maintainable and for the sake of argument, the Applicant Bank has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal after an inordinate and unexplained delay, and the MA 66/2025 and IA in MA 66/2025

¶73

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶74

¶75

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶76

filed by the Applicant Bank are categorically barred by limitation. Furthermore, no application for condonation of delay has been preferred by the Applicant Bank in this regard in the IA in MA 66/2025.

¶77

It is submitted that the order sought to be recalled was passed on 06.11.2023. Tt is pertinent to note that the Applicant Bank was fully aware of the said order and had already challenged the same by filing Review Application No. RA/31/2023. Therefore, the limitation commenced from the date of knowledge itself.

¶78

It is submitted that the Applicant Bank has filed this IA in MA 66/2025 and presents MA No. 135/2025 seeking substantially identical reliefs. It is a settled position that parallel proceedings seeking identical reliefs cannot be maintained simultaneously. Further entertaining the present MA and IA in MA 66/2025 would result in multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings, which is impermissible in law. The Applicant bank cannot be permitted to pursue two remedies for the same relief at the same time.

¶79

It is submitted that the reliefs sought in the IA in MA 66/2025 are directly and substantially identical to those sought in MA No. 135/2025. 1t is submitted that the parties to both proceedings are the same, the issues raised are the same, and the substantive relief claimed is also identical. In such circumstances, entertaining the present proceedings would result in parallel adjudication of the very same controversy, leading to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and creating a real possibility of conflicting findings and orders. The Applicant cannot be permitted to simultaneously prosecute multiple proceedings seeking the same relief before this Hon’ble Tribunal, as the same is contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.

¶80

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶81

¶82

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶83

Accordingly, the principles underlying Section 10 CPC squarely apply and the present proceedings deserves to be rejected on this ground alone, which states that:

¶84

“ 10. Stay of suit.

¶85

No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India have Jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court .”

¶86

It is further noteworthy that the Interim application filed by the Applicant Bank itself has been titled as:

¶87

"IA No. __/2026 in MA No. 66/2025 & MA No. 135/2025 (SA No. 282/2021)"

¶88

It is submitted that the Applicant Bank has attempted to file a single TA simultaneously in two independent miscellaneous applications. It is pertinent to note that every interlocutory application must arise from and be maintainable within a particular proceeding.

¶89

The filing itself demonstrates the confusion and legal infirmity inherent in the Applicant Bank's matter and further establishes the abuse of process being perpetrated through repeated applications seeking the same relief.

¶90

It is submitted that the Applicant Bank has continuously attempted to reopen the order dated 06.1 1.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in MA/194/2023 in SA/282/2021 through different proceedings and under different nomenclatures.

¶91

It is submitted that the Applicant Bank first attempted to challenge the said order dated 06.11.2023, through RA/31/2023.

¶92

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶93

¶94

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶95

Thereafter through MA No. 66/2025 and subsequently through MA No. 135/2025. And now the Applicant Bank is trying the same through the IA in MA 66/2025.

¶96

It is submitted that it is pertinent to note that vide detailed order dated 06.11.2023 passed in MA No. 194/2023 in SA No. 282/2021, this Hon'ble Tribunal had specifically examined the rival calculations furnished by both parties and adjudicated the amount payable after considering the merits of the respective claims. It is pertinent to note that upon scrutiny of the accounts, this Hon'ble Tribunal found that the Applicant Bank had impermissibly claimed both the outstanding principal amount as on 02.11.2023 along with interest thereon and, simultaneously, the amount of unpaid EMIs, thereby resulting in duplication of claims. As a result of this, this Hon’ble Tribunal disallowed the amounts claimed towards pending EMIs, pre-closure charges, legal charges and alleged Deputy Commissioner of Police order fees, holding the same to be illegally claimed.

¶97

Furthermore, this Hon’ble Tribunal observed that the demand drafts aggregating to Rs. 98,40,678/- were lying in the file and, despite specific directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal, the Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank refused to accept the said demand drafts. Accordingly, this Hon’ble Tribunal granted liberty to the Respondents to receive back both the demand drafts. Accordingly, this Hon'ble Tribunal expressly held that “the amount stands adjudicated” and disposed of the application as allowed. Thus, the order dated 06.11.2023 is a reasoned adjudicatory order passed after hearing both sides and determining the amount payable on merits. The Applicant Bank, having failed in its challenge thereto through Review Application No. RA/3 1/2023, cannot now be permitted to repeatedly seek reopening of the said adjudication through successive miscellaneous and interlocutory applications.

¶98

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶99

¶100

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶101

It is submitted that the Applicant Bank cannot circumvent the law of limitation by repeatedly changing the nomenclature of proceedings while seeking the very same substantive relief.

¶102

It is submitted that the substantive relief sought throughout remains identical, namely, reopening and recalling the order dated 06.11.2023. Such repeated litigation is impermissible and constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law as recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same has been established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. MODI VS. K.N. MODI AND ORS. MANU/SC/0092/1998 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

¶103

“41. Under Order 6 Rule 16, the Court may, at any state of the proceeding, order to be struck out, inter alia, any matter in any pleading which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Mulla in his treatise on the CPC. (15th Edition, Volume II, page 1179 note 7) has stated that power under Clause (c) of Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code is confined to cases where the abuse of the process of the Court is manifest from the pleadings; and that this power is unlike the power under Section 151 whereunder Courts have inherent power to strike out pleadings or to stay or dismiss proceedings which are an abuse of their process. In the present case the High Court has held the suit to be an abuse of the process of Court on the basis of what is stated in the plaint.

¶104

42. The Supreme Court Practice 1995 published by Sweet & Maxwell in paragraph 18/19/33 (page 344) explains the phrase "abuse of the process of the court” thus: "This term connotes that the process of the court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation... The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but

¶105

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶106

¶107

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶108

depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material.”

¶109

The expression “abuse of process” encompasses improper use of the Court's machinery for purposes of vexation and oppression, and the present Applicant, by initiating parallel proceedings for identical reliefs, is seeking to overreach and burden the adjudicatory process. Such conduct is contrary to public policy, judicial discipline, and the interests of justice, and therefore the present proceedings and above captioned Misc. Application deserves to be struck out/dismissed in imine with costs.

¶110

It is submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the power of review is limited in scope and is maintainable only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, the order dated 06.11.2023 was passed after hearing both parties and after detailed consideration of the rival calculations and claims. The Applicant Bank, through the present proceedings, is effectively seeking a reconsideration of the merits of the adjudication and a reopening of findings already rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal, which falls wholly outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction. Consequently, the relief sought by the Applicant Bank is not only legally untenable but amounts to an impermissible attempt to convert the limited power of review into a power of appeal, which is not sanctioned by law.

¶111

Heard arguments and peruse the record.

¶112

The present proceedings have arisen out of order dated 06.11.2023 passed in SA no. 282/2021 whereby, the SA was adjudicated upon the debt and the future interest. The contents of the reply have been gone through along with the judgment cited therein.

¶113

This Miscellaneous Application throws the light contending the illegality of the order passed adjudicating the debt. During the

¶114

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶115

¶116

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶117

Course of arguments, it was contended that my Ld. Predecessor has exceeded the jurisdiction by adjudicating the debt instead of adjudicating the actions taken by the Mentor Home Loans India Ltd.

¶118

Question of limitation is also being agitated by applicant. The main contention is that the relief sought is highly time barred. Various proceedings, i.e. MA no. 66/2025 for correction of order dated 12.02.2025, RA no. 31/2023 and MA no. 131/2025 have been pending.

¶119

Counsel for MA applicant submits that they have been pursuing the remedy diligently passing of various orders of literally being left remediless, if the public interest and public policy is not considered. It is submitted that the MA is nothing, but contempt of Hon’ble High Court. The Tribunal cannot look into any aspect related to contempt of Hon’ble High Court as such Tribunal has no power for the same and the SA applicant has not moved to Hon’ble High Court for the same till date.

¶120

Be that it may be, nothing is placed on record stating that the contrary pleadings are taken. On the one hand, it is stated that it is contempt of Hon’ble High Court order passed in SBCWP No. 18033/2023, on another hand, it is a principal that the previous order stands measured into order dated 06.11.2023 and the Writ Petition has become infractuous. This shows that the SA applicants are not sure as to what they want to plead or what they want to argue.

¶121

The contention of Respondent in SA is very clear that any order passed sans authority cannot be given effect and it becomes non est in the eyes of law. Definitely, instead of dwelling upon the merit of the matter and the actions taken by the Respondent in SA, my Ld. Predecessor has done adjudicating the debt and grant of interest post NPA which otherwise exceeds the authority under

¶122

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶123

¶124

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶125

Securitization Act, but such an authority could have been availed under RDB Act.

¶126

I agree with the arguments of the Respondent Financial Institution that once an order is passed beyond the authority, it becomes non est in the eyes of law.

¶127

The Tribunal has tried to mediate the matter between the parties for settlement, when Ld. Counsel Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, Advocate and Chairman of Respondent FI, Mr. Sahil Goyal was present. The matter could have been settled at Rs. 3.5 Crore, but counsel for the SA applicant insisted that the value of the property is only Rs. 2.5 Crore and they are ready to sell that property to the brother-in-law of one of the applicants for Rs. 2.5 Crore. The said brother-in-law was also present during the mediation.

¶128

The Mentor Home Loans India Ltd has given counter offer that let them pay Rs. 4.00 Crore against the full and final settlement and if according to them, the value of the property is Rs. 2.5 Crore, let them leave that property to Mentor Home Loans India Ltd and they will pay additionally Rs. 50.00 Lac to the lady.

¶129

Counsel for the applicant sought one week time to consult and guide the applicant. Ironically, she left the matter and another new advocate came in who pleaded total ignorance about the mediation.

¶130

A fact is very clear and admitted that SA applicant owe money at least to the tune of Rs. 2.5 Crore admitted by them, which they cannot deny.

¶131

In these circumstances and fully aware of the legal provisions, the Respondent FI cannot be stopped from availing their rights under Securitization and as such, it is made clear that Respondent FI shall be at liberty to proceed under Securitization on the basis of demand notice issued by them. Any order quashing the notice is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, this Misc. Application stands disposed of.

¶132

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026.

¶133

¶134

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶135

File be consigned to record and tagged with its Securitization Application, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶136

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶137

Order signed & uploaded on 07.07.2026. cm

Mentor Home Loans India Ltd. v. Abhishek Bhageria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mentor Home Loans India Ltd. v. Abhishek Bhageria

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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Vishal Thukral

Jayesh Jain and Surbhi Jain versus Bank of Baroda

Banshi Lal Mali versus Sammaan Capital Limited

Kamlesh Gotwal versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

Mentor Home Loans India Ltd. versus Abhishek Bhageria

Icici Bank Limited versus Ganesh Kumar Vaishnav