Dismissed

Saroj Rani v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT14 Jan 2026SA/325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought relief under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act claiming she was a bona fide purchaser unaware of prior encumbrances. Court rejected the challenge, noting applicant failed to prove complete title chain despite producing a sale deed, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 17 SARFAESI Act dismissed; SARFAESI action continued pending.

Saroj Rani versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 325 of 2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 325 of 2024

¶4

Saroj Rani

¶5

Versus

¶6

A.O. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and others

¶7

Dated: 14.01.2026

¶8

Item No. 11

¶9

Argued by: Sh.Sahil Soi, Counsel for the Applicant. Sh.Ishan Mathur proxy for Sh.Harsh Chopra, Counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2. None for the other Respondents.

¶10

Saroj Rani (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, Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and others (Respondents).

¶11

The case of the Applicant as set-up in the SA is that vide sale-deed dated 11.07.2018, she had purchased a house from Smt. Ritu Rani. She was not aware of the fact that Subash Kumar (husband of Ritu Rani) had taken any loan. However, she found a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act pasted outside the house of the Applicant. She came to know about the fraud. She also filed a complaint with the Police (Annexure A-4). Now Subash Kumar is absconding and his whereabouts are not known. Subash Kumar had taken a loan from HDF Financial Services (Respondent No.3) and thereafter the said property was transferred in the name of her wife Ritu Rani. Ritu Rani, in connivance with Subash Kumar, sold the property. At the time of purchasing the property she had checked the municipal record and also checked the original sale-deed. Accordingly, Respondents be restrained from taking the possession.

¶12

Respondent No. 1 and 2 in the written reply have alleged that on 30.04.2023, HDB Financial Services had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 5,81,980/- to

¶13

¶14

SA No. 325 of 2024

¶15

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶16

Subash Kumar and Ritu Rani to foreclose the loan from Canara Bank and property bearing House No. 13715-A, Ganesha Basti, Gali No. 4, Bathinda was the security. The documents were released in favour of HDB Financial Services. Further, loan agreement dated 23.09.2014 was entered between HDB Financial Services and the borrowers for Rs. 16,71,504/-. Vide assignment deed, dated 30.12.2022, the loan was assigned to Respondent No. 1 and 2. On 27.12.2023, Respondent No. 1 and 2 issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. On 05.07.2024, it issued the notice under Section 13(4). Since, the property was under mortgage, Ritu Rani could not alienate the same. It is stated that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶17

Mr.Sahil Soi, counsel for the Applicant has argued that there is no proper CERSAI registration. Accordingly, as per Section 26(D) of the SARFAESI Act, the Respondent is not competent to initiate the SARFAESI action. It is submitted that the SARFAESI action initiated by the Respondents be set aside.

¶18

Per contra , Mr.Ishan Mathur, counsel for Respondent No. 1 and 2 argued that Applicant claims herself to be a bona fide purchaser. However, Applicant has not produced on the record any sale-deed by which Subash Kumar and Ritu Rani may have become owner. He submitted that as a rule the Applicant should have obtained the original title-deed from the seller. The original title-deeds are lying with the Respondents. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶19

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶20

Applicant claims that she is a bona fide purchaser. Applicant has produced on the record a copy of the sale-deed dated 11.07.2018 by Ritu Rani in her favour. She has not produced on the record any sale-deed by Subash

¶21

¶22

SA No. 325 of 2024

¶23

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶24

Kumar in favour of Ritu Rani. As a rule, Applicant should have produced on the record the complete chain of titles. As per record, vide sale-deed dated 10.10.2006, Smt. Vinay Bansal had sold the property to Subash Kumar, who had raised the loan. Respondent has also produced on the record the CERSAI registration in favour of Subash Kumar which was created on 23.01.2015 and was modified on 08.02.2023.

¶25

I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present SA. The same is hereby dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶26

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

¶27

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer Pronounced in open court DRT-I, Chandigarh Manoj/Dated: 14.01.2026

¶28

Saroj Rani v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Rani v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company 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

Mohamed Ali versus South Indian Bank

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Bhanubi

Canara Bank versus Srikanth Ramappa Baloji

Union Bank of India versus M S Vardha Tea Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Alamdar Steel Fabrications

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Balkar Singh