Dismissed

Jyotsna Pravin Khetani v. Idbi Bank

DRT24 Jul 2026SA/141/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal debated an interim application challenging a bank's possession order under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the application lacked merit due to doubts regarding the authenticity of the General Power of Attorney executed by an applicant residing abroad and found no prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application No. 1840 of 2026 is rejected and stands disposed of.

Jyotsna Pravin Khetani versus Idbi Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before Harish Kumar Kaushik, I/c Presiding Officer DRT-I, Mumbai At: DRI- II, Mumbai

¶2

I.A. No.1840 of 2026 In Securitisation Application No.141 of 2026

¶3

Sr. No.63 Decided on : 24.07.2026

¶4

Jyotsna Pravin Khetani ...APPLICANT/s

V/s.

IDBI Bank & Ors

...RESPONDENT/s

Argued By –

Mr Siddharth Samantaray i/b Ms Kalyani Wagle, Advocates for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr Rajesh Nagori a/w Mr R. L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent No.1. None for other Respondents.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This order of mine shall dispose of the Interim Application bearing I.A. No.1840 of 2026.

¶13

By way of I.A. No.1840 of 2026, the Applicant prays to direct Respondent No.1 from taking possession in respect of the Villa No.6, Ground, 1^st and 2^nd Upper Floors, Megh Malhar Complex, Yashodham Enclave, A K Vaidya Marg, Chincholi Village, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063 (for short, “the said property”) scheduled on 27.07.2026.

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that Applicant is the owner of the said property. The said property is self-acquired of late Mr. Manilal Anandji Nanani, father of Applicant and Respondent No.2, and grandfather of Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.4 is the principal borrower.

¶16

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant further submitted that Mr Manilal Anandji Nanani died on 16.01.2014. The Applicant is the legal heir of Mr Manilal Anandji Nanani is joint owner and having equal share in the subject property along with the Respondent No.2 & 3.

¶17

Ld. Advocate also submitted that Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the alleged mortgagors of the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 has sanctioned credit facilities to the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the year 2016 aggregating to Rs.19.12 Crores. The Respondent No.1 issued a demand notice dated 10.10.2024 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. By notice dated 12.12.2024 under section 13(4) Respondent claims to have taken formal possession of the subject property.

¶18

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that on 08.07.2026, the Applicant visited the subject property for the first time and came to know about the notice dated 05.07.2026 issued by the Advocate commissioner affixed on the said property.

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

There is no valid or subsisting mortgage in respect of the said property as alleged by the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 failed to carry out due diligence before accepting and creating mortgage on the said property. No other person is entitled to claim any rights, title or interest on the said property except legal heirs of Mr Manilal Anadji Nanani. The Respondent Nos.2 & 3 does not have sole and exclusive right on the subject property. The Respondent No.1 has failed to verify and investigate the title of the said property.

¶21

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant also submitted that in demand notice dated 10.10.2024, the Respondent Bank has not disclosed the name and designation and principal outstanding. The possession notice dated 12.12.2024 issued under Section 13(4) has also not served upon the Applicant. The said Notice is not pasted on the conspicuous part of the property nor it is published in two newspapers. The Respondent No.1 is not registered with the CERSAI. The Respondent No.1 has not followed the mandatory provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Hence, I.A. No.1840 of 2026 should be allowed.

¶22

Ld. Advocate for Respondent vehemently opposed and submitted that the Applicant has no locus standi in the matter. The property in question is not self-acquired by his father. It was acquired by way of lease. Ld. Advocate further submitted that

¶23

Page 3 of 5

¶24

this S.A and I.A. are not maintainable. Hence, I.A. No.1840 of 2026 should be rejected.

¶25

10.Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties, considered the arguments. Perused the record.

¶26

11.It is evident from the perusal of record that this S.A. and I.A. have been filed on behalf of the General Power of Attorney notarised on 18.07.2026. This is admitted fact that the Applicant is residing in USA. The Applicant has not shown any evidence that either Applicant herself visited India to execute that General Power of Attorney or the General Power of Attorney Holder, Mr Jinesh Arun Bhai Shah visited USA. From the perusal of that General Power of Attorney, it is clear that document does not bear the date of execution simply bears the notarised date.

¶27

12.In the above facts, this contention that the Applicant visited the subject property on 08.07.2026 becomes doubted. The S.A. and I.A. were filed upon instruction of the Applicant as per General Power of Attorney is also doubtful in the circumstances of the case. The fact of availing loan facility, default in payment and issuance of demand notice are undisputed.

¶28

13.In the wake of foregoing discussion, this Tribunal does not find any prima facie case in favour of the Applicants. Balance of convenience also does not tilt in favour of the Applicants.

¶29

Page 4 of 5

¶30

Accordingly, I.A. No.1840 of 2026 is devoid of merit and hence, rejected.

¶31

14.Accordingly, I.A. No.1840 of 2026 stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/(HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK)

¶33

I/c PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, MUMBAI At: DRT-II, Mumbai

¶34

Tejas

¶35

Page 5 of 5

Jyotsna Pravin Khetani v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyotsna Pravin Khetani v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Champalal Surana versus Icici Home Finance Company Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus National India Construction and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus M v Pilankar

State Bank of India versus Mr Gejo Tage Ngomdir

Idbi Bank versus Sambhaji

Idbi Bank versus Priyanka