Dismissed

Rahmat v. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

DRT27 Jan 2026SA/297/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application under the SARFAESI Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's challenge to the bank's sale of a property, holding the application time-barred, doubting the validity of the alleged will, and finding the suit frivolous.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed, the bailment was rejected, and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed.

Rahmat versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA/297/2023

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/297/2023

¶4

RAHMAT Vs INDIAN BANK (ALLAHABAD BANK) AND OTHERS

¶5

27.01.2026 SUPPLEMENTARY ITEM NO.1

¶6

Argued by: Mr. Rakesh Gupta Advocate for the Applicant (SA) Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma Advocate for the Respondent Bank Mr. Surinder Kumar, Auction Purchaser in person

¶7

Rahmat Malik (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against the Authorised Officer, Indian Bank and others (Respondents).

¶8

As per Respondent No.1, on 17.04.2014, erstwhile Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank) had sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to ‘M/s Akshit Sales Corporation’ (Respondent No. 3), a proprietorship firm owned by Smt. Meena Behel. To secure the same, Smt. Raj Kumari had created security interest in respect of House No.460, Ward No.12, Guru Tegh Bahadur Colony opposite BC residence Karnal Road, Kaithal. In the year 2016, Smt. Raj Kumari died. Since the loan was not repaid, the Bank initiated the SARFAESI action and issued the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act.

¶9

Mr. Vinod Malik, the son of Smt. Raj Kumari and the father of the Applicant challenged the same by filing SA No.70 of 2019 which was allowed by the Predecessor of this Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2022 primarily on the ground that the Bank had initiated the SARFAESI action against Smt. Raj Kumari, who had already died and the Bank had not issued the notices to the legal heirs of the deceased.

¶10

After SA No.70 of 2019 was allowed, the Bank again initiated the SARFAESI action and issued the notices under Sections 13(2)

¶11

¶12

SA/297/2023

¶13

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶14

and 13(4) of the Act to Mr. Vinod Malik and other legal heirs, i.e. sons and daughter of the deceased. At this, Mr. Vinod Malik again filed SA No.201 of 2023. Apart from Mr. Vinod Malik, Mr. Rahmat Malik (Applicant), the grandson of the deceased also filed the present SA challenging the SARFAESI action. However, the SA filed by Mr. Vinod Malik was withdrawn by him.

¶15

We are left with the SA filed by Mr. Rahmat Malik, which was filed on 06.11.2023. In the SA, Applicant has claimed that he is the grandson of the deceased and in fact, Smt. Raj Kumari had executed a registered Will in his favor in the year 2013 and he being the legal heir of the deceased, is entitled to the property. He has further alleged that since he had inherited the property, the Bank should have issued the notices to him. However, no notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act was ever issued to him. It is admitted that in the meantime, the Bank had issued the auction notice on 25.07.2023 for 23.08.2023. In the auction, Mr. Surinder Kumar purchased the property. The Bank had fixed the reserve price at Rs.90 lacs. Mr. Surinder Kumar had given the bid of Rs.96 lacs. Since he was the highest bidder, the Bank sold the property and also issued the sale certificate in his favor. However, the possession is still with the borrower.

¶16

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, counsel for the Applicant has argued that Smt. Raj Kumari, prior to her death, had executed a registered Will in favor of the Applicant in the year 2013. Accordingly, the Applicant is the legal heir of the deceased. However, the Bank did not issue any notice to the Applicant either under Section 13(2), 13(4) or the auction notice. Accordingly, any action taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act is liable to be set-aside . He further argued that the mutation was entered after the death of Smt. Raj Kumari in favor of the Applicant on 13.01.2023. By that time, the Bank had come to know that the Applicant is the legal heir.

¶17

¶18

SA/297/2023

¶19

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶20

Accordingly, the Bank should have issued the notices to the Applicant after that date. However, no notice was ever served upon the Applicant. He further argued that the Bank had earlier issued the notice to the borrowers stating that Smt. Meena Behel is the daughter-in-law of Smt. Raj Kumari. In fact, Smt. Meena Behel is not related to Smt. Raj Kumari. Drawing my attention to the memorandum of equitable mortgage dated 17.04.2014, Mr. Gupta argued that a look at the same would show that it recites that Smt. Raj Kumari had deposited the title-deeds with the Bank on 25.09.2013. On 25.09.2013, there was no application at all by ‘M/s Akshit Sales Corporation’ (Respondent No. 3) or by anybody else to take a loan. In fact, Smt. Raj Kumari intended to take some loan and for that, she may have deposited the title-deeds. However, it is admitted on the record that Allahabad Bank never sanctioned any loan to Smt. Raj Kumari. Further, drawing my attention to the Memorandum of Equitable Mortgage dated 28.04.2014, Mr. Gupta submitted that the document was allegedly executed on 25.04.2014. However, it was scribed on a stamp paper of 28.04.2014. This is not possible. This shows forgery on the part of the Bank. Drawing my attention to the CERSAI report, he argued that there is no CERSAI report also. Had Smt. Raj Kumari created security interest in favor of the Bank, the CERSAI report would have shown the same. Winding up his arguments, Mr. Gupta submitted that the whole of the SARFAESI action taken by the Bank is illegal, null and void and the same be set-aside.

¶21

Per contra , Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, counsel for the Bank has argued that this is a false SA. Drawing my attention to the mortgagedeed executed by Smt. Raj Kumari in favor of the Bank, Mr. Verma submitted that a look at the same would show that it was executed by Smt. Raj Kumari. The son of Smt. Raj Kumari namely Mr. Vinod Malik had witnessed the same. In these circumstances, the question of any fraud by

¶22

¶23

SA/297/2023

¶24

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶25

the Bank against Smt. Raj Kumari did not arise. He further argued that in fact, earlier there was a loan in favor of Smt. Raj Kumari which she had repaid. Thereafter, ‘M/s Akshit Sales Corporation’ had taken a loan. Smt. Raj Kumari had stood surety for the loan and had created the equitable mortgage in favor of the Bank. Mr. Verma submitted that the circumstance that Smt. Raj Kumari had deposited the title-deeds on 25.09.2013 and the mortgage was created later on, would not make any difference. Mr. Verma vehemently argued that there is no force in the contention of Mr. Gupta that the mortgage-deed dated 28.04.2014 is a fabricated document. Mr. Verma submitted that whereas the mortgage-deed was scribed on 25.04.2014, the stamp papers for the same were purchased on 28.04.2014. The stamp paper was affixed on the mortgage-deed on 28.04.2014 and were presented before the Sub-Registrar, who had registered the same. Mr. Verma submitted that there is no forgery. Counsel also submitted that right from 2014 till 2019, neither Smt. Raj Kumari nor her legal heirs, namely, Mr. Vinod Malik and others raised any dispute about the mortgage by Smt. Raj Kumari. It was only when the Bank initiated the SARFAESI action that first Mr. Vinod Malik filed the SA which was allowed. Later, Mr. Vinod Malik again filed another SA which was withdrawn by him. Now on 06.11.2023, Applicant filed the present SA claiming that he is the only legal heir of Smt. Raj Kumari on the basis of the Will of the year 2013. Mr. Verma submitted that the Will is illegal. Even if it is admitted that the Will is a valid one, it will operate from the death of the deceased. The mortgage was created in the year 2014. Smt. Raj Kumari died in the year 2016. Since the mortgage was created in the year 2014 and Smt. Raj Kumari died in the year 2016, the Applicant would take the property subject to the mortgage. Mr. Verma further argued that whereas Smt. Raj Kumari died in the year 2016, the mutation was entered in favor of the Applicant in the year 2023. For seven

¶26

¶27

SA/297/2023

¶28

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶29

years, the mutation was not entered. It was argued that in fact, Applicant and his father, Mr. Vinod Malik have connived. Earlier the father was claiming the property. Now the son is claiming the property. It was argued that in fact, both son and the father are residing in the same house. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Applicant had no knowledge of the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Bank against Mr. Vinod Malik. It was also argued that the Applicant had earlier filed a civil suit. He did not approach the Tribunal within time. Accordingly, this SA is time-barred. Mr. Verma further argued that in fact, Applicant has also filed FIR No.266 dated 30.08.2025 against the Bank officials stating that they had obtained the signature of Smt. Raj Kumari on blank papers. Mr. Verma further argued that the alleged Will of the year 2013 is a forged and fabricated document. In case, this Will was in existence, why Mr. Vinod Malik or the Applicant did not set-up the same before this Tribunal when the Bank had initially initiated the SARFAESI action. Winding up his arguments, Mr. Verma submitted that this SA is time-barred and the same be dismissed.

¶30

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶31

The first question which arises for consideration is, ‘whether

¶32

the SA is within limitation?’ Applicant in the SA has alleged that the SA is within limitation as he is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. He is the owner in possession and is a third party. His ownership is duly reflected in the Revenue Records. The Bank has not issued any notice to him. He has further alleged that since the whole of the action is illegal, there is no period of limitation for approaching this Tribunal. He has come to know about the sale of the house in question recently after Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Civil Court and filed an application for rejection of plaint. He has further alleged that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the Limitation Act is applicable, then in view of the law settled by the

¶33

¶34

SA/297/2023

¶35

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶36

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ Shesh Nath Singh Vs Paidyapadi Sheoraphulli’ , this Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the present application. As a matter of abundant caution, he has filed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation in filing the present application.

¶37

Admittedly on 05.08.2023, Applicant had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kaithal inter alia with the averments that his grandmother, Smt. Raj Kumari was the owner in possession of the property on the basis of Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.1986. Smt. Raj Kumari expired on 23.10.2016. An oral family settlement had taken place on 20.05.2008 whereby he was declared the owner. On 22.05.2008, a memorandum of family settlement was executed etc. The plaint further stated that Smt. Raj Kumari had never mortgaged the property in the loan account of ‘M/s Akshit Sales Corporation’. Further, Smt. Raj Kumari had executed a Will on 08.11.2012 which was registered on 03.10.2013. Smt. Raj Kumari was unable to move. Accordingly, the question of her visiting Panchkula to deposit the title-deeds, did not arise. Accordingly, the Bank be restrained from taking the possession of the house. This civil suit was filed on 05.08.2023. The plaint of the civil suit has also been rejected by the Civil Court on 17.12.2025. It is strange that the Applicant instead of filing this SA rushed to the Civil Court and filed the Civil Suit. I am of the considered view that the Applicant should have approached this Tribunal within 45 days from the date he had come to know that the Bank has initiated the SARFAESI action. However, he filed the SA on 06.11.2023. Accordingly, this SA is time barred. I am of the considered view that the Applicant is also not entitled to the condonation of delay in filing the SA beyond time. Applicant and his father are residing in the same house. The father of the Applicant had filed SAs on two

¶38

¶39

SA/297/2023

¶40

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶41

occasions. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Applicant had a bona fide belief that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. As per Section 17 of the Securitization Act, it is only the Debt Recovery Tribunal which is competent to adjudicate the SARFAESI action taken by the Bank. The application filed by the Applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also dismissed.

¶42

Be that as it may, I am of the considered view that the Applicant has connived with his father and set up the Will of Smt. Raj Kumari dated 08.11.2012. Earlier, when the Bank had issued the notice, the father of the Applicant, Mr. Vinod Malik had filed SA No.70/2019 stating that the Bank has initiated the action against a dead person, i.e. Smt. Raj Kumari. Vide order dated 06.06.2022, the SA filed by the father of the Applicant was allowed. Thereafter, the Bank had issued the notices to all the sons and daughters of the deceased, Smt. Raj Kumari. At this, Mr. Vinod Malik again filed SA No.201/2023. However, on 22.04.2025, he withdrew his SA. Thereafter, the Applicant filed the present SA claiming that he is the owner on the basis of the Will dated 08.11.2012 of Smt. Raj Kumari and that since the Bank had not issued any notice to him, the SARFAESI action taken by the Bank is wrong.

¶43

Smt. Raj Kumari had died in the year 2016. Till 2023, Applicant never set up this Will. He got the mutation entered in his favor in the year 2023. Applicant and his father are residing in the same house. It is not believable that the Applicant was not aware of the fact that the Bank has initiated the SARFAESI action and has put up the property for auction. Though, the Bank should have made discreet inquiries about the Will, yet, considering the fact that the Applicant has set up this Will after 7 years of the death of Smt. Raj Kumari, creates a grave doubt about the execution of the Will. I am of the considered view that this Will is a document of

¶44

¶45

SA/297/2023

¶46

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶47

doubtful origin. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Applicant has no right or title or interest in the property. Even if it is considered that the Will of Smt. Raj Kumari is a genuine one, as the Applicant did not file the SA within time and has also failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay, I am of the considered view that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief. That apart, Applicant to put pressure on the Bank has also recently filed an FIR against the Bank. I am of the view that he has done this in order to put pressure on the Bank to withdraw the SARFAESI action. In fact, the Applicant and his father have made crude attempts to stall the recovery by the Bank. They have tried to sabotage the recovery by the Bank by hook or by crook. I am of the considered view that this is a false SA. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss the same.

¶48

A copy of this Final Order be furnished to all the parties free of cost.

¶49

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (A.S. Narang) Dated: 27.01.2026 Presiding Officer ANJ DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional Charge)

¶50

Rahmat v. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahmat v. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

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

Paramjit Singh versus Union Bank of India

Kiranjeet Kaur versus Uco Bank

Excellon Software Private Limited through Director Vinodkumar Laxminarayan Tambi versus Bank of Maharashtra

Mr Abhishek Anand versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Anup

Bank of India versus Salasar Garments