Dismissed

Jagdish Jamaklal Mansukhani v. Sammaan Capital Limited

DRT16 Jul 2026SA/177/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai dismissed an application challenging enforcement measures under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found no statutory violation in classifying the account as NPA, issuing the Demand Notice, proceeding to possession, or selling the asset via private treaty, despite an alleged unilateral interest enhancement and non-compliance with earlier interim conditions.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was dismissed; all pending IAs were disposed of; no order as to costs.

Jagdish Jamaklal Mansukhani versus Sammaan Capital… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶5

Date of Institution: 26.03.2025 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026

¶6

Jagdish Jamaklal Mansukhani, Adult, Indian Inhabitant residing at 2^nd Floor, “Aadhya” Jai Hind Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.43, N.S. Road No.10, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai- 400 056.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sammaan Capital Limited (formerly known) as Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited), having Corporate Office at First Floor, Tower 3A, DLF Corporate Greens, Sector-74A, Gurgaon, Narsinghpur, Haryana122004 through its Authorised Officer.

¶10

JPA Solutions Private Limited, (formerly known as JPA Holdings Private Limited), a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having office at man House, 102, S.V. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 062.

¶11

Anita Jagdish Mansukhani, adult, Indian Inhabitant having address at 2^nd Floor, “Aadhya” Jai Hind Cooperative Housing Society Limited,

¶12

Page 1 of 24

¶13

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶14

Plot No.43, N.S. Road No.10, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai- 400 056 4. India SME Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Having its registered officer at The Ruby, 11^th Floor, North-West Wing, Plot No.29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028.

¶15

…Respondents

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

For the Applicant	: Mr Miti	Rishab ka Agar	h wal	Shah - Adv	a/w Ms ocate
For Respondent No.1 & 4	: Mr	G.R.	Kin	khab	wala, Ms
	Meg	ha Gu	pta,	Ms	Anushree
	Tale	kar, Ms	La	vanita	Chityala,
	Ms	Shreya	G	upte	i/b M/s.
	Hed Adv	gehog ocates	&	Fox	LLP –
For Respondent No.2 & 3.	: Non	e

¶18

Final Order

¶19

(1) The present Securitisation Application No.177 of 2025 is filed under Section 17 of the SARFARSI Act challenging the measures taken by the Respondent No.1 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶20

(2) The Applicant has questioned, inter alia, the classification of the loan account as a NonPerforming Asset (NPA), the Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 issued under Section 13(2) of the

¶21

Page 2 of 24

¶22

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶23

SARFAESI Act, 2002, the subsequent measures adopted under Section 13(4), the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Act and the subsequent steps taken by the Respondent No.1 towards sale of the secured asset through a private treaty. The Applicant has also questioned the legality of the subsequent contractual arrangements entered into by the Respondent No.1 in relation to the proposed sale of the secured asset.

¶24

Factual matrix of the case:

¶25

(3) That the Applicant is the owner of entire third floor, fourth floor and fifth floor of the building known as "Aadhya" Jai Hind Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.43, N.S. Road No.10, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai -400 056 along with car parking spaces in basement, ground floor and stilt area (for short, "the said property").

¶26

(4) The Applicant claims ownership rights in the subject property, whereas the Respondent No.1 claims security interest therein pursuant to the financial assistance extended to Respondent No.2. The loan was sanctioned on 01.05.2011 and the requisite loan documents came to be executed thereafter, including creation of mortgage over the secured asset.

¶27

(5) During the pendency of proceedings before the competent Civil Court, Consent Terms dated

¶28

Page 3 of 24

¶29

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶30

13.12.2011 came to be executed between the concerned parties. Under Clauses 9, 10 and 19 of the said Consent Terms, Rameshchandra Mansukhani was conferred a contractual Right of First Refusal (ROFR) in the event of sale of the property, while the rights of the secured creditor to recover its dues were also preserved subject to the terms incorporated therein.

¶31

(6) According to the Applicant, the Respondent No.1 subsequently enhanced the contractual rate of interest without authority and consequently classified the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset on 22.08.2017. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 issued a Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 calling upon the borrowers to discharge the outstanding liability. Upon failure of the borrowers to liquidate the dues within the prescribed period, further measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated by the Respondent No.1.

¶32

(7) Being aggrieved by the Demand Notice and the subsequent possession measures, the Applicant had earlier filed Securitisation Application No.476 of 2018 before this Tribunal. During the pendency of the said proceedings, proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were initiated, whereupon the Applicant withdrew the said

¶33

Page 4 of 24

¶34

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶35

Securitisation Application with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies after culmination of the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Subsequently, the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal came to be concluded.

¶36

(8) Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 proceeded with the recovery and issued a Sale Notice dated 12.03.2025 proposing sale of the secured asset through a private treaty. In furtherance thereof, the Respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 17.03.2025 to Rameshchandra Mansukhani calling upon him to exercise the contractual Right of First Refusal flowing from the Consent Terms dated 13.12.2011. Consequent thereto, Consent Terms dated 31.03.2025 came to be executed between the Respondent No.1 and Rameshchandra Mansukhani, followed by issuance of a Letter of Confirmation acknowledging receipt of 25% of the agreed sale consideration and recording the terms governing payment of the balance consideration, issuance of the Sale Certificate and delivery of possession. (9) Aggrieved by the aforesaid measures, including the earlier measures adopted under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the subsequent steps taken towards sale of the secured asset, the Applicant has instituted

¶37

Page 5 of 24

¶38

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶39

the present Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶40

Case of the Applicant:

¶41

(10) The Applicant has challenged the measures initiated by Respondent No.1 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 primarily on the ground that the very foundation of the recovery proceedings is illegal and consequently every subsequent measure adopted by the secured creditor is liable to be set aside.

¶42

(11) That although Respondent No.2 had availed financial assistance from the predecessor of Respondent No.1, the Applicant himself had not borrowed any amount from the lender and had merely created mortgage over the secured asset. It is further contended that the mortgage deed does not authorise Respondent No.1 to charge interest in the manner subsequently claimed.

¶43

(12) That the contractual rate of interest was 12% per annum and that Respondent No.1 enhanced the rate of interest to 15% per annum with monthly rests without the consent of the borrower. It is contended that such unilateral enhancement is contrary to the contractual documents and has resulted in an artificial default.

¶44

(13) That the classification of the loan account as NonPerforming Asset on 22.08.2017 is illegal, being founded upon an incorrect computation of dues.

¶45

Page 6 of 24

¶46

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶47

Consequently, the Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is also liable to be declared illegal.

¶48

(14) That the subsequent measures adopted under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, including the Possession Notice and the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Act, being consequential to an illegal Demand Notice, are themselves unsustainable.

¶49

(15) That despite repeated objections raised by the Applicant regarding the computation of the outstanding dues and the alleged excessive charging of interest, Respondent No.1 failed to reconcile the loan account in accordance with the contractual terms.

¶50

(16) That the Applicant also questions the Sale Notice dated 12.03.2025 whereby Respondent No.1 proposed to dispose of the secured asset through a private treaty. According to the Applicant, the proposed sale is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶51

(17) That the Applicant has also questioned the subsequent contractual arrangements entered into by Respondent No.1 in relation to the proposed sale of the secured asset and submits that the same

¶52

Page 7 of 24

¶53

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶54

cannot validate the earlier illegal measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶55

(18) That the Applicant has relied upon various judicial pronouncements in support of the above contentions and has prayed that the Demand Notice, the subsequent measures adopted under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Sale Notice dated 12.03.2025 and all consequential proceedings be quashed and set aside.

¶56

Case of Respondent Nos.1 and 4:

¶57

(19) Respondent Nos.1 and 4 have opposed the present Securitisation Application by filing a detailed reply affidavit and have denied the allegations levelled by the Applicant. It has been submitted that every measure adopted by it has been undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and that the present Securitisation Application is devoid of merit.

¶58

(20) That the Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is valid in law and contains the complete details as required under the law. The allegation that the Demand Notice is defective is denied.

¶59

(21) That every statutory requirement prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 has been duly complied

¶60

Page 8 of 24

¶61

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶62

with while enforcing the security interest. According to them, the objections raised by the Applicant is a belated attempt to obstruct the lawful recovery proceedings.

¶63

(22) That the sale of the secured asset through a private treaty is a recognised mode of sale under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is further contended that the reserve price was fixed on the basis of a valuation report and that the sale process has been conducted strictly in accordance with law.

¶64

(23) That opportunities were granted to the Applicant and the concerned borrowers to regularise the account and discharge the outstanding liability. Despite such opportunities, no payment was made towards liquidation of the dues, thereby necessitating continuation of the steps to recover the legitimate dues.

¶65

(24) That the challenge to the notice relating to taking of physical possession is without substance, inasmuch as adequate notice was given in accordance with law before taking possession of the secured asset.

¶66

(25) On the aforesaid grounds, Respondent Nos.1 and 4 pray for dismissal of the present Securitisation Application with costs.

¶67

Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties. Perused the material placed on record.

¶68

Page 9 of 24

¶69

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶70

(26) The scope of jurisdiction exercised by this Tribunal is under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is confined to examining whether the measures adopted by the secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are in accordance with law. The Tribunal is required to examine whether the secured creditor has complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 while enforcing the security interest. Interference under Section 17 is warranted only where the person aggrieved establishes that the impugned measures suffer from a statutory infirmity or have been adopted in violation of the provisions of the Act. Mere disputes regarding the quantum of outstanding dues or accounting entries, in the absence of any statutory violation, do not by themselves invalidate the measures adopted under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶71

(27) The main contention of the Applicant is that Respondent No.1 unilaterally enhanced the contractual rate of interest from 12% per annum to 15% per annum without contractual authority and, on the basis of such allegedly erroneous computation, classified the loan account as a NonPerforming Asset on 22.08.2017. According to the Applicant, the Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,

¶72

Page 10 of 24

¶73

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶74

2002 is consequently illegal and every subsequent measure adopted by the Respondent Bank is liable to be set aside.

¶75

(28) Respondent No.1 has denied the aforesaid allegations and has submitted that the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset in accordance with the applicable norms and that the Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 was validly issued after determination of the outstanding liability. It is further submitted that the notice contains the details of the amount due and that all subsequent measures have been initiated strictly in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶76

(29) It is evident that the Applicant had earlier filed Securitisation Application No.476 of 2018 challenging, inter alia, the classification of the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset, the Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 and the consequential measures adopted by the Respondent Bank. During the pendency of the said proceedings, this Tribunal, by order dated 05.11.2018 passed on the Interim Application, observed that the controversy relating to charging of interest required examination after hearing both parties. Simultaneously, this Tribunal granted interim protection subject to specific conditions, including deposit of a sum of ₹2,58,24,771/- in two

¶77

Page 11 of 24

¶78

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶79

instalments and continuation of payment of the regular EMIs. Pursuant to the compliance of said condition the Respondent was directed to reduce the interest rate. The respondent Bank agreed to reduce the interest rate including waiving the other charges imposed on the Borrower.

¶80

(30) The record reveals that the Applicant failed to comply with the conditions imposed under the interim order dated 05.11.2018 in Securitisation Application No.476 of 2018, including the deposit directed by this Tribunal. Consequently, the Applicant cannot seek to rely upon the observations contained in the said order while simultaneously remaining in breach of the very conditions upon which the interim protection had been granted. The interim order must be read as a whole and not in fragments. The Applicant, having failed to avail the benefit of the conditional protection granted by the Tribunal, cannot isolate the observations from the accompanying conditions and contend that the issue of legality of the NPA already stood decided in its favour.

¶81

(31) Coming to the merits of the present challenge, the Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 forms part of the record. The notice discloses the particulars of the secured debt, the amount claimed as outstanding and calls upon the borrowers to discharge the

¶82

Page 12 of 24

¶83

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶84

liability within the statutory period prescribed under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶85

(32) Further, the existence of a dispute relating to the rate of interest or computation of dues does not, by itself, establish that the classification of the account as a Non-Performing Asset or the issuance of the Demand Notice suffers from any statutory infirmity under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶86

(33) It is well settled that the validity of a Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is to be tested with reference to the statutory requirements prescribed under the Act. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Demand Notice is vitiated by any jurisdictional defect, non-compliance with any mandatory provision of the Act or violation of any statutory requirement. In the facts of the present case, the grounds taken by the Applicant are insufficient to invalidate the Demand Notice or the consequential measures adopted under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶87

(34) It is also pertinent to note that after obtaining the aforesaid interim protection under the earlier SA, the Applicant admittedly failed to comply with the conditions imposed by this Tribunal. Thereafter, the earlier Securitisation Application came to be withdrawn owing to the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The earlier proceedings, therefore, never culminated

¶88

Page 13 of 24

¶89

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶90

into a final adjudication on merits. The present challenge has accordingly been examined independently on the basis of the pleadings, the documentary evidence and the statutory framework governing the controversy.

¶91

(35) Viewed cumulatively, the earlier order dated 05.11.2018 in SA No. 476 of 2018, the Applicant's failure to comply with the conditions imposed therein, the pleadings of the parties, the documentary evidence placed on record and the statutory framework governing the controversy do not persuade this Tribunal to hold that the classification of the loan account as a NonPerforming Asset or the Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 suffers from any statutory infirmity warranting interference under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶92

(36) The Applicant has further contended that since the Demand Notice itself is illegal, every consequential measure adopted thereafter, including the possession proceedings and the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, are also liable to be quashed.

¶93

(37) The Respondent Bank has submitted that every statutory requirement prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been complied with and that the possession proceedings have been undertaken strictly in accordance with law.

¶94

Page 14 of 24

¶95

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶96

(38) The challenge to the subsequent measures is principally founded upon the alleged illegality of the Demand Notice. Since this Tribunal has already held that the Applicant has failed to establish any statutory infirmity in the Demand Notice warranting interference, the consequential challenge cannot automatically succeed.

¶97

(39) The Applicant has also questioned the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, except making a general challenge, no independent statutory violation or jurisdictional defect in the proceedings under Section 14 has been demonstrated before this Tribunal. No material has been placed on record to show that the procedure prescribed under the Act has been violated while obtaining assistance under Section 14.

¶98

(40) Similarly, no independent flaw has been demonstrated in relation to the possession proceedings undertaken by Respondent No.1. Mere disagreement with the recovery proceedings cannot, by itself, invalidate the statutory measures undertaken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶99

(41) This Tribunal is therefore unable to hold that the possession proceedings or the order under Section 14 suffer from any illegality warranting

¶100

Page 15 of 24

¶101

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶102

interference under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶103

(42) The Applicant has challenged the Sale Notice dated 12.03.2025 proposing sale of the secured asset through a private treaty. It is contended that the subsequent sale process is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶104

(43) The Respondent Bank has submitted that sale through private treaty is one of the recognised modes of sale under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and that the sale process has been undertaken in accordance with law.

¶105

(44) The Tribunal finds that the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 recognise sale through private treaty as one of the permissible modes available to the secured creditor. The Rules do not prescribe any hierarchy amongst the recognised modes of sale. Consequently, the mere adoption of the mode of private treaty cannot, by itself, be treated as illegal. The material on record demonstrates that the impugned sale was not the first attempt to realise the secured asset. Earlier attempts undertaken by Respondent No.1 to realise the secured asset had admittedly failed. Consequently, the present sale was a subsequent sale.

¶106

Page 16 of 24

¶107

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶108

(45) The Applicant has not pointed out any specific provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 which has been violated merely because Respondent No.1 elected to adopt the mode of private treaty. The challenge is primarily directed against the subsequent contractual arrangements entered into by the Respondent Bank, which are dealt with separately while considering the next point.

¶109

(46) Accordingly, this Tribunal finds no statutory infirmity in the decision of the Respondent Bank to proceed with the sale of the secured asset through the mode of private treaty.

¶110

(47) The Applicant has also questioned the subsequent contractual arrangements entered into by Respondent No.1 in relation to the proposed sale of the secured asset. According to the Applicant, the implementation of the Consent Terms and the subsequent contractual documents are contrary to law and therefore liable to be set aside.

¶111

(48) The Respondent Bank has submitted that the contractual arrangements merely give effect to obligations already existing between the parties including the Applicant and do not in any manner derogate from the statutory powers available to the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶112

(49) The Consent Terms dated 13.12.2011 form part of the record. Clauses 9, 10 and 19 thereof provide for

¶113

Page 17 of 24

¶114

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶115

a contractual Right of First Refusal in favour of Rameshchandra Mansukhani while simultaneously recognising the right of the secured creditor to recover its outstanding dues in accordance with law.

¶116

(50) Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 17.03.2025 to Rameshchandra Mansukhani calling upon him to exercise the contractual Right of First Refusal. Thereafter, Consent Terms dated 31.03.2025 came to be executed followed by issuance of the Letter of Confirmation of the same date.

¶117

(51) The Tribunal finds that the aforesaid documents are contractual arrangements entered into during the course of the recovery proceedings. The mere execution of such documents does not, by itself, establish violation of any provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶118

(52) The Applicant has not pointed out any specific statutory provision which stands violated by Respondent No.1 while recognising the contractual obligations flowing from the Consent Terms dated 13.12.2011.

¶119

(53) The Tribunal is therefore unable to accept the contention that the implementation of the contractual Right of First Refusal or the execution of the subsequent Consent Terms dated 31.03.2025

¶120

Page 18 of 24

¶121

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶122

and the Letter of Confirmation render the steps taken by the Secured Creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 illegal.

¶123

(54) Though the legality of the measures adopted by Respondent No.1 has been independently examined in the preceding discussion, the conduct of the Applicant during the course of the recovery proceedings also deserves brief consideration.

¶124

(55) The record reflects that after initiation of recovery proceedings, opportunities were granted from time to time to enable liquidation of the outstanding dues. The Applicant also sought permission to dispose of the secured asset through a purchaser of his own choice. Appropriate indulgence was shown by the Tribunal by permitting such course subject to conditions safeguarding the interest of the secured creditor. However, the proposed transaction admittedly did not culminate in satisfaction of the outstanding liability.

¶125

(56) The record further reflects that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code thereafter intervened, resulting in withdrawal of the earlier Securitisation Application. Upon conclusion of those proceedings and the subsequent recovery measures adopted by Respondent No.1, the present Application has been filed.

¶126

(57) The Tribunal is conscious that every litigant is entitled to pursue such remedies as are available

¶127

Page 19 of 24

¶128

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶129

under law. Equally, once the statutory measures adopted by the secured creditor are found to be in accordance with law, repeated challenges to successive stages of the recovery proceedings cannot, by themselves, constitute a ground for interference under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶130

(58) The aforesaid observations are not the foundation of the present decision. The legality of the impugned measures has been independently examined on the basis of the statutory provisions and the material available on record. The chronology of events, however, lends support to the conclusion that no equitable or discretionary relief is called for in the facts of the present case.

¶131

(59) The Applicant as well as Respondent No.1 have relied upon various judicial pronouncements in support of their respective submissions.

¶132

(60) The Tribunal has carefully considered the case laws cited by both sides. There can be no dispute with the legal principles laid down therein. However, it is equally well settled that a judgment is an authority for what it actually decides and its applicability necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

¶133

(61) The judgments relied upon by the Applicant reiterate that where a secured creditor acts in violation of the mandatory provisions of the

¶134

Page 20 of 24

¶135

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶136

SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, appropriate relief may be granted under Section 17 of the Act.

¶137

(62) The judgments relied upon by Respondent No.1 recognise the limited scope of interference under Section 17 where the secured creditor has acted within the statutory framework governing enforcement of security interest.

¶138

(63) Having independently examined the pleadings, documentary evidence and statutory provisions, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Applicant has not established any statutory violation warranting interference with the measures adopted by Respondent No.1.

¶139

(64) The challenge to the classification of the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset and the Demand Notice dated 23.08.2017 has been considered in detail. The material placed on record does not establish that the classification of the account as NPA or the issuance of the Demand Notice suffers from any jurisdictional defect or violation of any mandatory provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The earlier interim order dated 05.11.2018 was admittedly interlocutory in nature and the Applicant having failed to comply with the conditions subject to which interim protection was granted cannot derive any advantage from the prima facie observations

¶140

Page 21 of 24

¶141

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶142

recorded therein. The said order never culminated into a final adjudication on merits.

¶143

(65) Similarly, this Tribunal finds no independent illegality in the subsequent measures adopted by Respondent No.1 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or in the proceedings undertaken under Section 14 of the Act.

¶144

(66) The challenge to the Sale Notice dated 12.03.2025 and the subsequent sale process has also been independently examined. The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 recognise sale through private treaty as one of the permissible modes of sale. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Respondent Bank, merely by adopting the said mode of sale, has violated any mandatory provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Rules framed thereunder.

¶145

(67) The Tribunal has also considered the challenge directed against the contractual arrangements flowing from the Consent Terms dated 13.12.2011, the communication dated 17.03.2025, the Consent Terms dated 31.03.2025 and the Letter of Confirmation of the same date. The Applicant has failed to establish that the recognition of the contractual Right of First Refusal or the execution of the subsequent contractual documents is contrary to any provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,

¶146

Page 22 of 24

¶147

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶148

2002 or that the same vitiates the recovery proceedings.

¶149

(68) The chronology of events further reflects that the Applicant was afforded repeated opportunities during the course of the recovery proceedings. Appropriate interim protection was also granted by this Tribunal in the earlier proceedings, subject to specific conditions. The Applicant, however, failed to comply with the conditions imposed by this Tribunal. Though the conduct of the Applicant is not the foundation of the present decision, the same constitutes a relevant circumstance while appreciating the overall factual matrix in which the present challenge has been instituted.

¶150

(69) This Tribunal has also carefully considered the judicial precedents relied upon by both sides. There can be no dispute regarding the legal principles laid down therein. However, the applicability of every precedent necessarily depends upon the facts of the particular case. Having independently examined the record of the present proceedings, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the authorities relied upon by the Applicant do not advance the case beyond the factual findings recorded herein.

¶151

(70) In view of the findings recorded on all the Points for Determination, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Applicant has failed to

¶152

Page 23 of 24

¶153

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶154

establish any statutory or legal infirmity in the measures adopted by Respondent No.1 under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 so as to warrant interference under Section 17 of the Act.

¶155

(71) Accordingly, the Applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the present Securitisation Application. Accordingly, the following order:

¶156

ORDER

¶157

I. The Securitisation Application No.177 of 2025 is hereby dismissed.

¶158

II. All pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶159

III. No order as to costs.

¶160

Sd/-

¶161

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

¶162

Radhika

¶163

Page 24 of 24

Jagdish Jamaklal Mansukhani v. Sammaan Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Jamaklal Mansukhani v. Sammaan Capital Limited

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

Hdfc Bank versus Samrin Ahmad

Icici Bank Limited versus Joyson

Neelu Gautam Gotwal versus Punjab National Bank

Mr Ishwar Manik versus Sammaan Capital Ltd.

Jagdish Jamaklal Mansukhani versus Sammaan Capital Limited

Prakash Bhaskar Lad versus Canara Bank