Abhijay Gupta v. Icici Bank Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal held the mortgage illegal because the mortgagor had no authority to transfer the entire property, leaving the father with only a one-third share after the mother's death.
What did the court decide?
The Respondent Bank is restrained from taking possession of the house and from auctioning the same during the pendency of the SA.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
SA/121/2022
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH
SA/121/2022 ABHIJAY GUPTA Vs ICICI BANK LIMITED
13.01.2026 ITEM NO.33
- Argued by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar Advocate for the Applicant (SA) Mr. Rahul Garg Advocate for the Respondent Bank
By this order I propose to pass an interim order in respect of the SARFAESI action taken by the Bank.
- In brief, the case of the Applicant, as set up in the SA, is that House No.169, LA, MC No.1139/28, Ward No.10, Model Town Rohtak measuring 264.37 sq. yards was earlier owned by his mother, Smt. Ritu Gupta, who had purchased the same vide sale-deed No.6954 dated 05.12.2000 for Rs.4,50,000/- from one Smt. Kusum Mehta. Unfortunately, his mother died on 24.12.2006 intestate. Accordingly, as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the house in question was inherited by him; his father and sister in equal shares. Her mother had never taken any loan. He was born on 10.01.2003 (Birth Certificate is AnnexureA3). It is alleged that in the last week of March, he found a symbolic possession notice dated 22.03.2022 issued by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 pasted outside the house. The notice stated that Mr. Sanjay Gupta; Ms Aarti Gupta; Mr. Hari Ram Gupta and Shiv Shakti Automates were earlier issued a notice under Section 13(2) dated 19.06.2021. Since, they had not made the payment, symbolic possession notice has been issued. Applicant has alleged that he had never taken any loan. He is not the guarantor for any loan. He had narrated these facts to the Respondent, who refused to share any documents with him. The Bank threatened him to throw him out of the property. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also pasted the notice dated 30.03.2022 on the outer wall of the house of the Applicant on 20.04.2022. On 21.04.2022, he had sent a registered notice to the Respondents and advised
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the mortgage executed by the grandfather was valid considering the father lacked competency to transfer the entire property.
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal can restrain the bank from taking possession pending its decision.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Abhijay Gupta
- respondent
ICICI Bank Limited
Coram
ANJ
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court