Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. Indian Bank

DRT12 May 2026SA/253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that a joint owner, despite not being the borrower or guarantor, has locus standi to challenge a SARFAESI action where the bank created security interest without his consent to a portion of the joint property. The auction was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed; the auction held on 23.09.2022 is set aside; the Bank is directed to refund auction money with interest.

Suresh Kumar versus Indian Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 253 of 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

SA No. 253 of2025

Suresh Kumar

Versus

Authorized Officer,Indian Bank and others

¶8

Dated: 12.05.2026

¶9

Item No. 13

¶10

Argued by: Mr.RS Bhatia & Mr.Lovish Kukkar, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr.Saurav Goyal, Counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2/Bank. Ms.Sonal Chhabra, Counsel for Respondent No. 3 to 5. Mr.Manu Loona, Counsel for Respondent No. 6/Auction Purchaser.

¶11

Suresh Kumar (Applicant) has filed this Securitization^Application under Section ll of the Securitization and Reconstruction of^{FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002^{(SARFAESI Act), against the} Authorized Officer, Indian Bank and others^{(Respondents).}

¶12

Admittedly, sometime in the year 2017, Indian Bank^{sanctionedthe} following credit facilities to IWs Juneja^{Enterprises, a proprietorship firm,} owned by Raghav Juneja:-

¶13

(a) Cash Credit Limit Rs.20 lakh (b) SME Term Loan: Rs. 12.50 lakh (c) WCTL Rs. 1.88 lakh (d) FITL Rs.0.54 lakh

¶14

To secure the same, Raghav.Juneja^(Respondent No.3)^{and his brother} Gaurav Juenja (Respondent No. 4)^created security^{interest in respect} approximately 20 marlas of land, in favour of^{the Bank,} by^{depositing the title} deeds of their property, in favour of the Bank. Apart^{from this, the father} Respondent No. 3 and 4, namely Naresh Kumar^{Jur-reja(deceased)also stood}

¶15

surety for this loan. In fact, earlier Naresh^{Kumar Juneja (father of} No. 3 and 4) and his brother Suresh Kumar^{(Applicant) had jointly}

¶16

2 kanals of land, vide sale-deed No. 855, dated^{28.05.1982.However,} transfer deed No. 1231, dated 09.06.2016, Naresh Kumar Juneja transf-erred¹⁰

¶17

SA No. 253 of 2025

¶18

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLINAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶19

¶20

lz marlas of land, out of the above-mentioned^{2 kanals land, to Respondent} No. 3 (Raghav Juneja). The mutation^{on the basis of this transferdeed was} also executed. Again, Naresh Kumar executed^{the tatimadeed, bearing serial} No. 3031, dated 26.10.2016 in^respect of^{this very land, in favour of} Respondent No. 3. In the transfer deed,^{the dimensions of the propertyhave} been given as 22 foot 8 inch x 125 foot^:2832 sq.^{foot i.e. 10 Yz marlas.} Similarly, Naresh Kumar Juneja transferred^{approximately10 marlasof land,} in favour of Respondent No. 4^(Gaurav Juneja), vide^{transferdeed No. 1230,} dated 09.06.2016. The tatima deed was also^executed by^{late Naresh Kumar} Juneja in favour of Respondent No. 4, on 26.10.2016^{(copiesof transferdeeds} and tatima deeds are Annexure R-6 and R-7). Laler,^{Naresh Kumardiedon} 28.10.2022. Since, Respondent No. 3, 4 and Naresh^{Kumar failedto make the} repayment the loan of IWs Juneja Enterprises, the^{Bank initiated the} SARFAESI action. On 28.06.2021, Bank^declared the^{accountNPA. On} 02.07.2021, Bank issued the demand notice under Section^{l3(2) of the} SARFAESI Act to Respondent No. 3,4 and^{late Naresh KumarJuneja, which} was followed by the possession notice on^{14.09.2021. Finally, on 12.05.2022,} Bank issued the sale notice. However, it^{appears that there was no bidder.} Accordingly, on 31.08.2022, Bank issued^{anotherauction noticeand fixed up} the auction on23.09.2022.The Bank fixed^{up the reserve price at Rs.41.58} lacs. Respondent No. 6^participated in this^{auction. Respondent No. 6 gave the} highest bid of Rs. 41.68 lacs. On29.09.2022,Bark^{issuedthe sale certificate} in respect of the secured asset, in^{favour of RespondentNo. 6.}

¶21

Applicant is the real brother.of Naresh Kumar^{Juneja and the uncle of} Respondent No. 3 and 4. Earlier, Applicant had filed civil^{suit challenging the} transfer deeds, against the Respondents.^However, on^{06.10.2022,Applicant} withdrew that suit by making a statement that he has entered^intoa compromise with the defendants. Thereafter, Applicant^{filed CWP No. 23291} of 2022, before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein he challenged the^auction. 2

¶22

SA No. 253 of 2025

¶23

ilJ

¶24

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLINAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶25

Vide order dated 11.10.2022, the Hon'ble High Court restrained the Bank from registering the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser and also from taking the physical possession of the property. Hon'ble the High Court also ordered that the Applicant would pay the amount due within two weeks. Despite the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the Bank did not accept the money. Accordingly, Applicant filed CM No. 16984 of 2022 in CWP No 23291 of 2022. Vide order dated 27 .10.2022, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Bank to accept the money. Accordingly, Applicant deposited Rs. 35.50 lacs vide DD No. 882839, dated 11.10.2022. Ultimately, vide order dated 19.08.2025, Hon'ble the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the

¶26

following observations

¶27

Xxx

¶28

The petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate statutory rentedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioner prefers an application under Section l7 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone.

¶29

Since interim relief has already been granted in the present petition, the same will continue till the DRT takes fresh^{decision on the questionof interim relief, providedthe} petitioner approaches the DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its ffict.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. XXX'

¶31

On 10.09.2025, Applicant filed the present SA, inter alia, with the averments that he (Applicant) is a^joint owner of 2 kanals of land, which had been^jointly purchased by him alongwith his brother Naresh Kumar Juneja, vide sale deed No. 855, dated 28.05.1982. However, his brother Naresh Kumar had transferred around20 marlas of land out of this 2 kanal land, to his sons, namely Raghav Juneja and Gaurav Juneja (Respondent No. 3 and 4), transfer deeds No. 1230 and 1231, dated 09.06.2016. Again, Naresh

¶32

¶33

SA No. 253 of 2025

¶34

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLINAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶35

¶36

had executed tatima deeds, in favour of Respondent No. 3^and 4,^on 26.10.2016. Applicant alleged that in fact, the land^{measuring2kanal is part} of 5 kanals 8 marlas of land, which is also^joint. Accordingly,^NareshKumar could not transfer I kanal of land to his sons without his consent.^{He has also} alleged that he is in^joint possession of this land. The Bank^{had not served the} notices under Section l3(2) and 13(4) to Respondent No. 3, 4^{and Naresh} Kumar Juneja. He (Applicant) was also not served with the^noticesunder Section 13(2) and l3(4) and auction notice. The notices were not affixed^on the property. The notices were not published in two newspapers having^wide circulation in the area. The Bank had not fixed the reserve^{priceproperly.} Applicant alleged that in fact, vide valuation report dated^{28.11.2016, the} approved valuer of the Bank had valued the^property at Rs.^64,65,0001-. However, on 10.05.2022, the same valuer valued the^property at^Rs. 46,20,0001-. This shows that the Bank had^grossly undervalued^{the property.} Applicant alleged that the market value of the^property is^around Rs.^{1 crore.} Further, Applicant had also^got conducted the valuation, from^{his valuer, who} valued the property at Rs. 1.14 crores. Further, during^{this period the collector} rate of the properly has also increased. Vide letter^{dated 23.01.2024, (he)} Applicant had requested Tehsildar, Fazrlka to^{intimate whetherthe property} has been partitioned or not. The Tehsildar has informed^that the^propertyis still^joint and has not been^partitioned. Accordingly,^the Bank^{couldnot sell} the property in auction. Applicant states that^{he came to know from the family} members that the property has been sold in auction by the Bank.^He immediately contacted the Authorized Officer of the Bank on26.09.2022^and requested him to accept the dues and not to sell the^{property. However,the} Bank did not agree. Accordingly, on 10.10.2022, he^{(Applicant)filed CWP} No. 23291 of 2022. Applicant has already deposited the^{amount to the Bank as} per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. He had also filed a complaint with the Vigilance Department of the Bank for investigation. Applicant^hadalso

¶37

¶38

SA No. 253 of2025

¶39

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶40

¶41

sought information under the RTI and he was informed that the inquiry is still pending. Applicant has alleged that the whole of the SARFAESI action is illegal, null and void. Accordingly, the auction conducted by the Bank be set aside

¶42

Respondent No. 1 and 2, in reply to the Securitization Application, have denied the case of the Applicant. They have alleged that the SA is timebarred. Earlier, Applicant had filed Civil Suit No. 1380 of 2022, before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Fazilka, for declaration that transfer deed No 3031 and 3032, dated 26.10.2016 are illegal, null and void. Later, he himself withdrew the suit stating that there has been compromise between the parties. Bank alleged that it had advanced the loan to Respondent No. 3. To secure the same, Respondent No. 3, 4 and Naresh Kumar Juneja had created security interest in favour of the Bank. Since, Respondent No. 3 failed to make the payment, Bank initiated the SARFAESI action and issued the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) and ultimately sold the property in auction on 23.09.2022. On 29.09.2022, Bank issued the sale certificate in favour of Respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 1 and 2 also denied the other averments of the Applicant. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the^present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶43

Respondent No. 6 in the reply, has also denied the case of the Applicant. He has submitted that after the death of Naresh Kumar, Applicant and Respondent No. 3 to 5 had a lodged false FIR under Section 306 IPC against him. However, after inquiry it was found false. It is stated that the present SA is an abuse of the process of law. RespondentNo.6 isabonafide purchaser. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶44

Applicant in the replication has reiterated his case as set up in Securitization Application and denied the case of Respondents. 5

¶45

SA No. 253 of2025

¶46

¶47

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶48

I have heard Mr.RS Bhatia, counsel for the Applicant; Mr.Saurav Goyal, counsel for Respondent Bank and Mr.Manu Loona, counsel^{for auction} purchaser.

¶49

Mr.Bhatia, counsel for the Applicant has argued that under the^law Naresh Kumar Juneja could not transfer 20 marlas of land to his sons,^namely Raghav Juneja and Gaurav Juneja (Respondent No. 3 and 4). Mr.^Bhatia submitted that in fact, vide sale deed No. 855, dated 28.05.1982, Applicant^and his brother Naresh Kumar Juneja had purchased 2 kanals of land. Accordingly, Naresh Kumar Juneja could not unilaterally transfer 20 marlas of land to his sons, without his consent. Accordingly, the transfer by Naresh Kumar Juneja, in favour of his sons, is subject to the rights of the Applicant. Bank had sold the property in auction on 23.09.2022. On 10.10.2022, Applicant had filed CWP No. 23291 of 2022, before the Hon'ble High Court, which vide order dated 11.10.2022, directed the Applicant to deposit the dues to the^Bank within two weeks. As per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, he^had deposited the money with the Bank. Despite that the Bank did not^{accept the} money. Accordingly, Applicant had filed CM No. 16984-2022^{in CWP No.} 23291-2022. Vide order dated 27.10.2022, the Hon'ble High Court^had directed the Bank to accept the money. Accordingly, the Bank^{had accepted} the money. Ultimately, vide order dated 19.08.2025, the Hon'ble^{High Court} directed the Applicant to approach the Debts^Recovery Tribunal.^Mr.Bhatia submitted that this is strange that the Bank after^{havingacceptingthe money} from the Applicant, under the orders of the Hon'ble High Court,^{has not} cancelled the auction. The action of the Bank is totally illegal.^Mr.Bhatia submitted that the Applicant is a co-owner in the^property in^question. Accordingly, he is the aggrieved person. Mr.Bhatia submitted that in^{fact, the} Bank should not have accepted the transfer deed by Naresh Kumar Juneja, favour of his sons, without the consent of the Applicant. Applicant^had

¶50

¶51

SA No. 253 of2025

¶52

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLINAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶53

¶54

executed the transfer deed. Accordingly,^{the mortage by RespondentNo. 3 and} 4, in favour of Bank is itlegal. Mr.Bhatia^{submitted that the Bank has also} committed other illegality in this case.^The Bank^{did not serve the notices} under Section l3(2),13(4) as well auction^{notice to Respondent No. 3, 4 and} Naresh Kumar Juenja. Bank did not^publish the^{noticesin the newspapers} having wide circulation in the area.^Bank did^{not valuethe property properly.} In fact, the value of the property is much^{more. Mr.Bhatiasubmitted that in} fact, Applicant is ready to compensate^{RespondentNo.} 6^{also. Mr.Bhatia} highlighted that in the year 2016, Mr.^Rajesh Midha,^{the approvedvaluer of} the Bank, had valued the^properfy at Rs.^{64,65,0001-.However, in the year} 2022, he had valued the property at Rs. 46,20,0001-. Mr.^{Bhatia submitted that} in fact, the Bank had valued the^property below^{the collectorrate.Mr.Bhatia} submitted that he has also moved an application for^{placingon record the sale} deeds, which shows that the collector rate of the^{propertyis muchmore.} Mr.Bhatia also filed an application for transposing^{Respondent No. 3 to 5 as} Applicants in the present SA. Ms.Sonal Chhabra,^{counselfor Respondent No.} 3 to 5 has also made a statement that they^{have no objectionin casetheyare} transposed as Applicants in the^present SA. Mr.^{Bhatiasubmittedthatthe} SARFAESI action be set aside and the auction^{conducted on23.09.2022be set} aside.

¶55

Per contra. Mr.Saurav Goyal, counsel^{for RespondentNo.1 and2lBank} has submitted that the Bank had advanced the loan to^{RespondentNo. 3.} Respondent No. 4 had stood surety alongwith his father^{late Naresh Kumar} Juneja. Respondent No. 3 and 4 had created^{equitable moftgageby depositof} title deeds. Since, Respondent No. 3 failed to^{make the repaymentof the loan,} Bank declared the account NPA. On 02.07 .2021,^{Bank issuedthe notice under} Section l3(2) ofthe SARFAESI Aci,^{whichwas followed by the notice under} Section 13(4) dated 14.09.2021. Finally, Bank^issued the^{auctionnotice and} sold the property on 23.09.2022. Respondent No. 6^{was the highest bidder,} 7

¶56

SA No. 253 of 2025

¶57

¶58

DEBTS RECOVERY TzuBLINAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶59

who gave the highest bid of Rs.41.68 lacs against the reserve^price of^Rs. 41.58 lacs. Mr.Goyal submitted that the law is well settled that a borrower^has the right of redemption only till the publication of the auction notice. In^the case in hand, Applicant is not the borrower. The^payment was^made to^the Bank after the Bank had sold the property to Respondent No. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bafna's case has held that the borrower^has no right of redemption after the date of publication. Mr.Goyal submitted that in the present case Applicant has also concealed material facts. Applicant has not disclosed in the SA that he had also filed civil suit, which he had withdrawn on the ground that there had been compromise between the^parties. Mr.Goyal fuither submitted that the SA is time-barred. The auction had taken^place on 23.09.2022 and the present SA was filed on 10.09.2025. Accordingly,^the SA is beyond limitation. Mr. Goyal submitted that there is no merit in the^present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶60

Mr.Manu Loona, counsel for Respondent No. 6/Auction^Purchaser endorsed the contentions of Mr.Goyal. Mr.Loona submitted that^{he is a bona} fide^{purchaser.He has also depositedthe whole of the saleconsideration.} Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no merit in the^present SA^{and the} same be dismissed.

¶61

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶62

I have already given the chronology of events in the opening^{part of the}

¶63

order. Admittedly, in the year 2017,Indian Bank had sanctioned the following

¶64

credit facilities to Respondent No. 3r

¶65

(a) Cash Credit Limit: Rs.20 lakh (b) SME Term Loan: Rs. 12.50 lakh (c) WCTL Rs. 1.88 lakh (d) FITL Rs.0.54 lakh

¶66

To secure the loan, Respondent No. 3 and 4 had created security

¶67

interest in respect of 20 marlas of land, in favour of the Bank. In fact, vide sale

¶68

deed No. 855, dated 28.05.1982, Applicant and his brother Naresh

¶69

¶70

SA No. 253 of2025

¶71

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶72

Juneja (father of Respondent No.3 and 4),^{had jointlypurchased2 kanals of} land. Naresh Kumar Juneja, vide transfer deed Nos. 1230 and^{1231, dated} 09.06.2016, had transferred 10 marlas of land each, to RespondentNo.3^and 4. Later, Naresh Kumar Juneja had.also executed tatima deed on^28.06.2016. As mentioned earlier, Respondent No. 3 and 4, did not^{make the repaymentof} the loan and Bank initiated the SARFAESI action and sold the^{property in} auction on 23.09.2022, to Respondent No. 6, for Rs.^{41.68 lacs, againstthe} reserve price of Rs. 41.58 lacs. The sale certif,rcate was also^issuedon 27.09.2022.

¶73

The first and foremost^question which arises for^{considerationis,} 'Whether the Applicant has the locus standi to^challenge the^SARFAESI action ?

¶74

¶75

Admittedly, Applicant is neither the borrower nor the^{guarantor.From} the evidence on the record, it is apparent that he is^{a joint} owner of^{2 kanals of} land, out of which 20 marlas of land had been transferred by^{his brother} Naresh Kumar Juneja, in favour of his sons Respondent No. 3^{and 4.} Admittedly, vide sale deed No. 855, dated 28.05.1982, Applicant and^his brother Naresh Kumar Juneja had^{jointlypurchased} 2^kanals of^land.As mentioned earlier, Naresh Kumar Juneja, vide transfer^deed Nos.^{1230 and} 1231, dated 09.06.2016, had transferred 10 marlas of^{land each, to his sons} Respondent No. 3 and 4. Admittedly, Applicant is not a signatory to^the transfer deed. It is also admitted on the record that^{the Bank did not obtainthe} consent of the Applicant when Respondent No. 3 and 4^{had created security} interest in respect of 20 marlas of land, in favour of the^Bank. For all^intents and purposes, Applicant is a co-owner in^{joint possession} of 2|marlas^{of land.} In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Bank^{*as ,rot]} justified in accepting the security interest in respect of 2|marlas of land, bf l Respondent No. 3 and 4, without the consent of the Applicant. In fact,^thel Bank should have obtained the consent of the Applicant to the "ff..t tt^utl sl

¶76

SA No. 253 of2025

¶77

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLINAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶78

J./

¶79

Respondent No. 3 and 4 are in exclusive^possession of^{a particularportion of} the property and he has no objection to the creation of^{security interest by} respondent No. 3 and 4 in favour of the Bank. It appears^{fromthe evidence on the} record that the Bank was fully alive to the situation^{that the securedassetis a joint} property. The Bank was also aware to the fact that the sale-deed dated^28.05.1982 is in the^joint name of Applicant and Naresh Kumar Juneja.^{However,in order to} give it a colour that respondent No. 3 and 4 are exclusive owners and in exclusive possession of 10 marlas each, Naresh Kumar Juneja executed transfer-deeds wherein he gave specific dimensions of the^property transferred^{by him in favour} of Respondent No. 3 and 4. Since, total 2 kanals of land^{was a joint property of} Applicant and Naresh Kumar Juneja, the latter could not transfer^{specific portion} to anybody. I have also perused the legal opinion of Mr. Mohinder^Loona, Advocate, who had given the legal opinion in this case.^{Though,Mr.Mohinder} Loona, Advocate, in his legal opinion, has mentioned that the secured^{assetis part} of 2 kanals of land,^yet, he failed to appreciate that the^{transferdeed has been} executed by Naresh Kumar Juneja only and^not by^{Applicant and NareshKumar} Juneja^jointly. In these circumstances, the secured asset^{can be said to be joint} property of the Applicant; Respondent No.3 and 4. Since, the Applicant^{is a co-} owner and in^joint possession of the secured asset, he^has the^{locus standi to file} the present SA. I am of the considered view that this SA^{cannot be said to be} time-barred as the Applicant had filed CWP No.^{23291-2022before the Hon'ble} High Court, on 10.10.2022 and the Hon'ble High Court^{had directedhim to make} the payment to the Bank, which the Applicant had eventually^{made to the Bank.} Vide order dated 19.08.2025, the Hon'ble High Court^{also orderedthat this SA} would be heard and decided on merits and would not be^treated it^beyond limitation. That apart, Mr.Bhatia has drawn my attention to^{the site plan which} shows that there is a common^gate to the^{property measuring 2 kanals.I am of the} considered view that the Bank again committed a^grave illegality by^{selling 20} marlas of land as one unit. In this case, as^per Bank, respondent No. 3^{and4 were} owners of 10 marlas each. Accordingly, the^{Bank shouldhaveput up the property}

¶80

¶81

SA No. 253 of 2025

¶82

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLINAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶83

for auction of respondent No. 3 and 4 separately and not^jointly. Though, counsel for the Applicant raised many grounds to the effect that the notices under Section l3(2),13(a) and auction notices were not served upon him; the property was not valued properly etc., yet, I am of the considered view that the Applicant is not entitled to raise the same as he is neither the borrower nor the guarantor. All these grounds are not available to him. Let me also advert to a contention raised on behalf of the auction purchaser. Mr.Manu Loona submitted that the Applicant has concealed the facts as he did not disclose in the SA that he had filed Civil Suit. In that suit, Applicant had only prayed for cancellation of transfer deed. In the present SA, Applicant has challenged the SARFAESI action. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that non-mentioning of the above suit is of no consequence. Accordingly, the present SA is allowed and the auction held on 23 .09.2022 is hereby set aside.

¶84

At the time of arguments, Mr.Bhatia, counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is ready to compensate Respondent No. 6. Accordingly, it^is hereby ordered that the Bank would refund the auction money to Respondent No. 6 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit, till the date of^payment, within 15 days from today. Applicant would also deposit Rs. l0 lacs with the Bank as compensation to Respondent No. 6, within 15 days. The Bank would make the payment of Rs. 10 lacs deposited by the Applicant, to the auction purchaser within 15 days from today. Bank would get the sale certificate cancelled. The auction purchaser would also return all the documents of^title given by the Bank to him.

¶85

All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶86

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all parties, as per

¶87

rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due

¶88

Pronounced in open court Dated: 12.05.2026 Manoj

Pre DRT-I

SANo.253 of2025

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLTNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

SA No. 253 of2025

Surdsh Kumar

Versus

Authorized Officer,Indian Bank and others

¶98

Dated: 12.05.2026

¶99

Item No. 13

¶100

Argued by: Mr.RS Bhatia & Mr.Lovish Kukkar, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr.Saurav Goyal, Counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2lBank. Ms.Sonal Chhabra, Counsel for Respondent No. 3 to 5. Mr.Manu Loona, Counsel for Respondent No. 6/Auction Purchaser.

¶101

Ileard on the application for transposins filed bv the Applicant. Though, counsel for respondent No. 3 to 5 states that they^be transposed as Applicants, yet, the Bank and the auction^{purchaserhave} objected to the same. It is stated that respondent No. 3 to 5^{be transposed as} Applicants in the present case. Admiuedly, respondent No. 3^{and 4 have not} filed the SA. They had also not filed the writ^petition before^the Hon'ble^High Court. It appears that Applicant wants to show that^{respondentNo. 3 and 4} also challenge the SARFAESI action. I am of the^{considered view that the} application is wholly misconceived. First of all this^{applicationhas been filed} much belatedly. That apart, the^purpose for filing the^{applicationis to show} that respondent No. 3 and 4 also challenge the SARFAESI^action. I^{am of the} considered view that at this stage, after a^period of four^{years, Applicant} cannot be allowed to transpose them. The application^{is hereby dismissed.}

¶102

Ileard on the application for^production of documents.

¶103

The application has been filed to^produce on the record^some title^deeds recently executed in the locality. The^purpose of filing this^{applicationis to} show that the market value of the property is much higher than^{the sale price.} Applicant is neither the borrower nor the^guarantor. Accordingly,^{he cannot}

SA No. 253 of2025

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶108

allowed to raise this ground. This ground can be raised by the borower only. The application is misconceived. The same is hereby dismissed.

¶109

SA No. 253 of2025

¶110

Vide separate order of even date, the present SA has been allowed. Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the^{parties,as per}

¶111

rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due

¶112

Pronounced in open court Dated: 12.05.2026 Manoj

¶113

Pi DRT

¶114

Suresh Kumar v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. Indian 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

Hdfc Bank versus Kabul Singh

M/s Phoenix Infra Estate International limited versus Bank Of Baroda

Dileep Kumar Pathak versus Canara Bank

M S Cms Gas Appliances Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Mr Tithi Singha versus Canara Bank

Bank of India versus Bimal Paul and Anr.