Dismissed

Vikram Malhotra v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

DRT30 May 2026SA/320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging SARFAESI auction proceedings. The Tribunal noted the applicant filed for amendment after the auction and sale certificate were completed, holding the application lacked merit and was beyond time limits.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; all pending interim applications disposed of.

Vikram Malhotra versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No.320 of 2023

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/320/2023 VIKRAM MALHOTRA

¶4

Versus

¶5

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS

¶6

30.05.2026 Item No.12

¶7

Argued by: Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Ishan Mathur, proxy Counsel for Mr. Harsh Chopra, Counsel for respondent FI.

¶8

Mr. Ashok Malik, Counsel for auction purchaser (on VC).

¶9

Vikram Malhotra (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 Authorized Officer, Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited and Others (Respondents).

¶10

Admittedly, on 08.05.2018, Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.2,26,37,831/- to the Applicant, who did not make the repayment, and on 01.02.2019, DHFL declared the account NPA. On 31.07.2019, DHFL issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. On 05.02.2020, the Duty Magistrate-cum-Tehsildar issued the possession notice. On 04.08.2022, the Duty Magistrate-cum-Tehsildar directed the SHO to deliver the possession of the property on 06.09.2022 at 10:00 A.M. to DHFL, and provide necessary protection. On 05.09.2022, Applicant filed CWP No.20145 of 2022 (O&M) before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the declaration of the account as NPA, the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), etc. On 06.09.2022,

¶11

¶12

SA No.320 of 2023

¶13

the Hon’ble High Court passed an interim order staying the dispossession. However, vide order dated 31.08.2023, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed CWP No.20145 of 2022 (O&M) with the observation that the writ petition was not maintainable as DHFL was not a State and was a private non-banking financial institution, and as such, the Applicant could not invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the Applicant could approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶14

On 06.10.2023, Applicant filed the present SA challenging the SARFAESI action, including the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) and the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 14. Applicant further alleged that there were proceedings under Section 227 read with Clause (ZK) of Sub-section (2) of Section 239 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against DHFL, and there was moratorium. Accordingly, DHFL could not initiate recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

¶15

As per the portal of DRT, the Applicant had uploaded the SA and documents on 06.10.2023. The SA was put up before the Presiding Officer for the first time on 26.10.2023. On 21.12.2023, DHFL put in its appearance. On 23.08.2024, the respondent filed its reply to the SA, and the case was adjourned to 17.09.2024 for filing of the rejoinder. On 17.09.2024, counsel for the Applicant made a statement that the respondent had issued an auction notice and that he intended to move an application challenging the same, and the case was adjourned to 30.09.2024. In fact, the respondent had issued the

¶16

¶17

SA No.320 of 2023

¶18

auction notice on 29.08.2024 and fixed the auction for 04.10.2024. On 05.10.2024, counsel for the respondent stated before the Tribunal that the auction had continued till 10:00 P.M. (approximately) on 04.10.2024, and that the respondent had received the highest bid of Rs.2,95,20,000/-, and the case was fixed for 07.10.2024. On 07.10.2024, counsel for the FI stated that the Financial Institution (FI) had issued a letter to the auction purchaser informing her that her bid was the highest and that the same had been confirmed and she was asked to deposit 25% of the total sale consideration. On 07.10.2024, counsel for the Applicant again made a statement that he would move an application challenging the auction. The case was adjourned to 23.10.2024. On 23.10.2024, it was adjourned to 08.11.2024, from 08.11.2024 to 12.12.2024, and from 12.12.2024 to 09.01.2025. On 09.01.2025, counsel for the Applicant again made a request to move an application for impleading the auction purchaser, and the case was adjourned to 21.03.2025. On 21.03.2025, the application for impleadment of the auction purchaser was allowed, subject to all just grounds that may be available to the parties, and notice was issued to the auction purchaser for 17.04.2025. On 06.05.2025, counsel for the auction purchaser appeared and sought an adjournment for filing a reply. On 29.07.2025, counsel for the Applicant requested an adjournment to file an amended SA. This deserves to be mentioned here that on 12.01.2026, the respondents stated that they had filed replies to the amended SA and supplied copies to the opposite parties. However, a perusal of the record shows that only an application for amendment of the SA was filed, and no amended SA was ever filed.

¶19

¶20

SA No.320 of 2023

¶21

I have heard Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, counsel for the Applicant; Mr. Ishan Mathur, proxy counsel for Mr. Harsh Chopra, counsel for the respondent FI; and Mr. Ashok Malik, counsel for the auction purchaser.

¶22

Mr. Vyas, counsel for the Applicant, has argued that no sale notice was served upon the Applicant. It was neither affixed on the property nor published in newspapers. Possession was already with the respondent when the sale notice was issued. No notice was sent to the Applicant by e-mail. No notice under Section 13(8) was issued, and there was no registration with CERSAI. Mr. Vyas, also submitted that there was a moratorium against DHFL. He further submitted that no valuation of the property was obtained before putting the property to auction. Accordingly, the SARFAESI action, as well as the auction, to be set aside.

¶23

Per contra , Mr. Mathur and Mr. Malik, submitted that the respondent had issued the auction notice on 29.08.2024. The auction was fixed for 04.10.2024. The respondent had fixed the reserve price at Rs.2,28,90,000/-. There were three bidders. The property fetched Rs.2,95,20,000/-. Mrs. Surbhi Mittal, was declared the highest bidder. The sale certificate was issued in her favour on 22.10.2024. Mr. Malik, submitted that on 17.09.2024, counsel for the Applicant had made a statement that the respondent FI had issued the auction notice and he wanted to move an application challenging the same. On 05.10.2024, Mr. Harsh Chopra, counsel for the respondent FI, stated that the respondent FI had successfully conducted the auction on 04.10.2024 and had received the highest bid of Rs.2,95,20,000/-. On

¶24

¶25

SA No.320 of 2023

¶26

07.10.2024, counsel for the respondent FI also stated that a letter had been issued to the auction purchaser informing her that her bid was the highest asking her to deposit 25% of the total sale consideration. Despite having knowledge of the auction and the fact that the auction had been successful, Applicant filed an application for amendment of the SA on 13.08.2025, which was beyond the period of limitation. Mr. Malik, submitted that there is no merit in the SA and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶28

I have already given the chronology of events in the opening part of this judgment.

¶29

It has already been mentioned that DHFL had sanctioned the loan on 08.05.2018, which was declared NPA on 01.02.2019. On 31.07.2019, DHFL issued a notice under Section 13(2), which was followed by a possession notice. The Tehsildar had fixed 06.09.2022 for taking the possession. However, on 05.09.2022, the Applicant filed CWP No.20145 of 2022 (O&M) before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which passed an interim order staying the dispossession. However, vide order dated 31.08.2023, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed CWP No.20145 of 2022 (O&M). On 06.10.2023, Applicant filed the present SA and uploaded the documents. Accordingly, the SA was filed beyond the period of limitation, as it was filed after 45 days. Be that as it may, even though the Applicant had filed the SA, during its pendency, DHFL issued the auction notice on 29.08.2024 and fixed the auction for 04.10.2024. On 05.10.2024, counsel for the FI intimated the Applicant that the auction

¶30

¶31

SA No.320 of 2023

¶32

had been successful. On 07.10.2024, counsel for the FI again intimated the Applicant that DHFL had confirmed the auction. Ultimately, the auction purchaser deposited the total sale consideration, and on 22.10.2024, FI issued the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. Despite having knowledge of the fact that the property had been sold, Applicant filed an application seeking amendment of the SA on 13.08.2025, which, on the face of it, was beyond the period of limitation. I am of the considered view, that there is no merit in the SA, and the same is hereby dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶33

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶34

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶35

Pronounced in open court Dated: 30.05.2026

¶36

PANKAJ

¶37

Vikram Malhotra v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Malhotra v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Karan

Mrs Ramya versus Hdfc Bank

Canara Bank versus Basavaraj Angadi

Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhdev Singh

Axis Bank versus Mukhtiar Singh

Canara Bank versus Surinder Kaur