Dismissed

Mohd Ikramuddin v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT16 Jan 2026SA/340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed two connected SARFAESI applications filed by a borrower challenging recovery actions, demand notices, symbolic possession, and an auction sale by a financial institution. The court held the FI followed statutory procedures and dismissed the applications due to the applicant's failure to comply with superior court orders.

What did the court decide?

The securitization applications SA No.340 of 2024 and SA No.597/2023 were dismissed, allowing the respondent FI to proceed with recovery.

Mohd Ikramuddin versus Jm Financial Asset… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, DELHI HEWAN TARA BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI

¶2

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶3

SA No.340 of 2024

¶4

Md. Ikramuddin s/o Md. Islamuddin R/o D-91/2, Gali No.10, Mohan Puri Vijay Park, Delhi-110053 Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. 7th Floor, Cnergy, Appasaheb Marathe Marg Prabhadevi, Mumbai City, Maharashtra-400025

¶7

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. (PCHFL) 4th Floor, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Plot No.6, Block — A Sector — 2, Noida, UP-201301

¶8

Mr.Shakib Ali R/o C-12/475, Second Floor Block C-12, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053

¶9

Respondents

¶10

SA No.597/2023

¶11

Md. Ikramuddin s/o Md. Islamuddin R/o D-91/2, Gali No.10, Mohan Puri Vijay Park, Delhi-110053

¶12

Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. (PCHFL) Plot No.6, Block — A

¶15

Sector — 2, Noida, U.P.-201301

¶16

3M Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Registered Office:

¶17

7th Floor, Cnergy, Appasaheb Marathe Marg Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 Respondent

¶18

2 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶19

Present:
For the Applicant	: Sh.Pallav Saxena, Advocate
For the Respondent FI	: Sh.Sanjeev Singh, Advocate
For the Auction Purchaser	: Sh.Pawan Relay, Advocate

¶20

Date of Reserve: 08.01.2026

¶21

Date of pronouncement: 16.01.2026.

¶22

(FINAL ORDER)

¶23

These two connected securitizations applications being SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023 are disposed of with the following observations:

¶24

SA No.340 of 2024

¶25

The present SA has been filed by the applicant on 09.09.2024 and amended on 11.12.2024 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Principles of order VI Rule 17 of CPC 1908 read with Section 17 (7) of SARFAESI Act read with Rule 18 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 to quash and set aside auction notice published on 01.08.2024 issued by Respondent no.1 for sale of property on 12.09.2024

¶26

and notice u/s 13 (2) against the property bearing house no.167, Block C-11, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi measuring 70 sq.metres (hereinafter referred as property in question).

¶27

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that applicant was sanctioned loan facility of Rs.74.50 lacs from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation (DHFL) on 17.04.2023 and as per loan agreement loan, was to be repaid in EMIs of

¶28

3 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶29

Rs.99,894/- against mortgage of property in question. It has further been submitted that applicant is only earning member among eight family members including his mentally retarded sister as dependent and mother of applicant fell seriously ill, was hospitalized and heavy expenditure incurred on her treatment due to which applicant defaulted in EMIs. It has further been submitted that due to defaults, applicant received demand notice u/s 13 (2) dated 27.06.2014 from DHFL for Rs.77,66,717/- without disclosing the NPA date. It has further been submitted that applicant not a willful defaulter and paid Rs.4.26 lacs after contacting the officials of DHFL but despite the same, DHFL affixed symbolic possession notice dated 08.09.2014 to handover possession. It has further been submitted that applicant filed SA No.312/2014 before DRT-III Delhi for restraining DHFL from taking physical possession and obtained order for status quo on 22.10.2014 subject to deposit of Rs.2.00 lacs paid by the applicant. It has further been submitted that after issuance of notice u/s 13 (2), the applicant deposited Rs.20.00 lacs with DHFL but they obtained order dated 11.10.2017 from the court of Ld. CMM and Court Receiver issued notice for possession on 18.11.2017. It has further been submitted that the applicant filed WP no.10633/2017 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and vide order dated 29.11.2017, directed the applicant to deposit

¶30

4 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶31

Rs.9.00 lacs but petition was dismissed on 13.04.2018 for nonprosecution. It has further been submitted that the applicant filed application for restoration of Writ Petition wherein vide order dated 26.07.2018 directed DHFL to file statement of account and to make certain payments. It has further been submitted that the applicant paid Rs.20.00 lacs during said period and executed Agreement to Sell dated 27.08.2018 for sale of family property for balance payment, however, petition was dismissed on account of non-compliance of order dated 26.07.2018 & 30.08.2017. It has further been submitted that applicant already paid Rs.52.00 lacs against loan amount of Rs.74.50 lacs and DHFL not provided copy of statement of account as directed on 26.07.2018. It has further been submitted that applicant filed Appeal (C) No.33834/2018 before Hon'ble Supreme Court and could deposited Rs.10.00 lacs only due to financial constraints before 01.02.2019 and the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the applicant to deposit balance amount of Rs.29.00 lacs vide order dated 27.02.2019 and extended till 08.03.2019 as last opportunity passing order for automatic disposal of SLP, in case amount is not deposited within extended time period. It has further been submitted that the applicant could comply the directions partially got .SLP dismissed automatically. It has further been submitted that Dewan Housing Finance Corporation obtained order dated

¶32

so-

¶33

5 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶34

22.05.2019 from Ld.CMM Delhi u/s 14 and Id. Court Receiver issued notice dated 15.07.2019. It has further been submitted that applicant filed WP(C) No.8392/2019 which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court on 05.08.2019. It has further been submitted that applicant filed LPA No.523/2019 before Hon'ble High Court Division Bench which directed the applicant vide order dated 14.08.2019 to deposit Rs.40.00 lacs by DD fvg. Registrar General by 19.08.2019 which was also dismissed due to non-appearance of the applicant on 20.08.2019. It has further been submitted that applicant has deposited Rs.59,14,347/- after issuance of notice u/s 13 (2) against demand of Rs.77,66,717/- by DHFL. It has further been submitted that applicant shocked to found another notice. u/s 13 (2) dated 23.02.2023 from respondent no.2 for whimsical amount of Rs.95,30,974/- as on 31.01.2023 without any bifurcation while ignoring that notice u/s 13 (2) for same loan account was already issued and law does not permit and is bad in law. It has further been submitted that respondent no.2 mentioned NPA classification as 09.12.2019 whereas earlier notice was without NPA date. It has further been submitted that respondent no.2 taken over the management of respondent no.1 and issued possession notice u/s 13 (4) dated 29.08.2023 and another notice on 25.11.2023 after taking Ld.CMM order for possession on 16.12.2023. It has further

¶35

Sal

¶36

6 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶37

been submitted that applicant filed SA No.597/2023 for restraining the respondent No.2 from taking physical possession which was dismissed on 14.12.2023 by Ld.DRT and further filed IA No.4788/2023 which was dismissed on 16.12.2023. It has further been submitted that applicant filed Mis.Appeal No.37/2024 before Ld.DRAT which was withdrawn since respondent no.2 assigned the debt to respondent no.1 who issued e-auction sale notice dated 18.01.2024 for auction of property in question on 27.02.2024 for Rs.133.20 lacs. It has further been submitted that since SA was pending, the applicant filed fresh SA No.75/2024 and respondent no.1 withdrawn the auction sale notice on account of technical issued and matter was adjourned for completion of pleadings. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 issued another auction sale notice dated 21.02.2024 and applicant moved application u/s 17 (7) of SARFAESI Act but auction sale notice was later withdrawn. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 issued notice dated 01.08.2024 seeking removal of household/rnovable articles which was received on 10.08.2024 and then applicant came to know that respondent no.1 published auction sale of property in local newspaper on 01.08.2024 at reserve price of Rs.133.20 lacs for auction on 12.09.2024 which is much below the actual price of the property. It has further been submitted that without issuing

¶38

7 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶39

any auction sale notice under Rule 8 (6) and 9 (1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 which gives opportunity to the borrower to redeem the mortgage. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 admittedly not followed mandatory 30 days' notice period after amendment of Section 13 (8) between issuance of sale notice under 8 (6) and publication under 9 (1) of the Rule 2002 as held in various judgements. It has further been submitted that the respondents sold the property on 12.09.2024 and applicant came to know from respondent no.2 during the proceedings before Ld. Registrar. It has further been submitted that respondent not filed details of auction purchaser as directed by the Ld. Registrar vide order dated 17.09.2024 to which applicant filed application. It has further been submitted that vide absolute order dated 11.12.2024, the Hon'ble DRAT Delhi directed the parties to maintain status quo and statement of account filed is totally incorrect, illegally without any justification. It has further been submitted that sale notice not published in newspapers having wide circulation and thus actions of sale are grossly illegal and void. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 violated Rule 8(5) by not obtaining valuation report from an approved valuer and not taken approval of appropriate committee and provided to the applicant. It has further been submitted that reserve price is

¶40

54-

¶41

8 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶42

grossly low in comparison with market value. It has further been submitted that before sale, it is obligatory to procure fresh valuation and reserve price cannot be reduced without obtaining fresh valuation. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 failed to disclose the encumbrances on property in impugned sale notice and conducted the auction property being "as is where is" "as is what is" and "whatever there is" basis" in complete violation of Rule 9(7) to 9(10). Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the impugned auction sale dated 12.09.2024 and set aside the auction notice and restrain respondent no.1 and 3 from selling, alienating and creating third party interest in property in question.

¶43

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI has vehemently opposed the submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicant and submitted that applicant along with Mrs. Shabana Parveen, co-borrower availed financial assistance of Rs.74.50 lacs from Piramal Capital Housing Finance (formerly DHFL) in 2013 by executing various facility documents and created security interest in the property in question to secure the facility. It has further been submitted that applicants started default in repayment of EMIs as per terms and conditions of Loan Agreement and account was declared NPA on 09.12.2019 as per RBI guidelines by respondent no.2 FI. It has further been submitted that respondent FI followed provision under

¶44

9 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶45

SARFAESI Act and issued fresh demand notice under 13 (2) on 23.02.2023 for Rs.95,30,974/- as on 31.01.2023 with interest sent thru post and published in newspaper Pioneer (Hindi & English) on 16.03.2023. It has further been submitted that all payments have been duly accounted for and amount demand in notice dated 23.02.2023 is correct after adjustment of all payments made by the applicant and statement of account have been submitted. It has further been submitted that applicant raised objection u/s 13 (3A) on 25.05.2023 beyond 60 days' limitation period. It has further been submitted that respondent no.2 FI replied the objection on 05.06.2023 and took symbolic possession of property on 29.08.2023 duly published in two newspapers dated 30.08.2023. It has further been submitted that respondent no.2 filed application u/s 14 for appointment of receiver before Ld. CMM Delhi which was allowed vide order dated 20.11.2023 and Sh.Jitendra Bhati was appointed as Court Receiver for taking physical possession and fixed 16.12.2023 for possession. It has further been submitted that applicant filed SA No.597 of 2023 praying for restraining respondent no.2 FI from taking physical possession of property which was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2023 and allowed to proceed for possession of secured asset. It has further been submitted that applicant filed application no.4788 of 2023 in

¶46

SA No.597 of 2023 which was dismissed on 16.12.2023 by this

¶47

10 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶48

Tribunal on the ground that applicant was not willing to regularize the loan account despite Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi given opportunities. It has further been submitted that the respondent No.2 FI taken physical possession of the property on 16.12.2023 through Court Receiver in accordance with Section 14 conferred under Section 13(4) and Rule 8 of SARFAESI Act. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 FI successfully conducted the auction on 12.09.2024 in consonance with order. dated 11.09.2024 whereby interim prayer for restraining respondent FI from auctioning the secured asset on 12.09.2024 stood dismissed and respondent no.3 was declared as successful bidder for Rs.133.30 lacs and Sale Certificate dated 26.09.02024 was issued favoring Respondent no.3. It has further been submitted that respondent no.3 deposited more than 15% of sale consideration on 13.09.2024 and balance amount was paid within 15 days ensuring compliance with Rule 9 (3) and (4) and registered Sale Certificate dated 23.10.2024 was issued. It has further been submitted that loan account was assigned to respondent no.1 FI vide Assignment Deed dated 29.03.2023. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 issued Sale notice dated 18.01.2024 for e- auction on 27.02.2024 which was withdrawn due to technical default. It has further been submitted that confirmed sale

¶49

11 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶50

cannot be unconditionally set aside except in exceptional circumstances of proved fraud or collusion. It has further been submitted that the respondent no.1 FI issued another auction notice dated 21.02.2024 for auction but not given sufficient time as mentioned u/s 8(6), same was withdrawn as recorded in order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 26.03.2024. It has further been submitted that respondent No.1 FI issued sale notice on 29.072024 fixing date of auction as 12.09.2024 sent thru post on 02.08.2024 duly published in two newspapers and affixed on conspicuous part of secured asset and obtained valuation of two valuers of secured asset. It has further been submitted that this Tribunal vide its order dated 11.09.2024 stated that conduct of applicant was malafide since availing financial assistance and not complying the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi proving that applicant is willful defaulter and vide order dated 11.12.2024, Hon'ble DRAT disposed of the Misc. Appeal no.299 of 2024 appeal directing this Tribunal to decide expeditiously in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that applicant lost his right to redemption u/s 13 (8) which commenced from date of issuance of demand notice and expired on date of publication of auction notice but applicant never came forwards to redeem the mortgage rather refused to make any payment thus no relief can be granted. It has

¶51

12 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶52

further been submitted that encumbrance may be grievande of respondent no.3 who not raised any issue at any given stage and no prejudice caused the applicant in view of judgement titled M/s L&T Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Trishul. Developers & Anr., reported as 2020 SCC Online SC873 and Milap Devi Jain & Ors. Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors. Reported as MANU/DA/0014/2019. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 complied requirements of Rules 8 (6) and 9(1) by giving 30 days as per law and applicant failed to exercise right to redemption and there is no violation u/s 13 (8). It has further been submitted that Pre-sale Notice dated 29.07.2024 was delivered on addressed mentioned in Loan Sanction Letter dated 15.04.2013 and applicant challenged this as well interim relief was duly rejected on 11.09.2024 by this Tribunal. It has further been submitted that applicant admittedly replied to notice dated 01.08.2024 seeking time till 20.09.2024 to lift household goods and was well aware of 30 days' notice baselessly alleging notice is not in compliance of Rule 9(1). It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 and 2 followed the provision of SARFAESI Act and applicant failed to point out any default in the actions of respondent no.1 and 2 laid own under SARFAESI Act 2002 and making false and baseless allegations due to which respondent FIs not able to recover the dues and prayed to dismiss the securitization

¶53

13 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶54

application and allow the respondent FI to handover vacant peaceful physical possession to respondent no.3 and applicant to remove the articles from secured asset. Accordingly, it has been prayed for dismissal of the present securitization application as the applicant is willful defaulter and not complied the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

¶55

The respondent no.3 in his short reply under Section 10,12 and 15 of Contempt of Court Act 1971 submitted that applicant has preferred this application to delay the matter from being finally disposed on merits and has failed each time to honour the commitments made to the Hon'ble Courts on several occasions. It has further been submitted that subsequent to execution of Sale Certificate, undertook the registration of Sale Certificate and incurred expenses of Rs.11,00,000/- for registration including stamp duty and other charges. It has further been submitted that order dated 14.01.2025 passed by Hon'ble DRAT for maintaining status quo of property with consent of counsel of respondent FI in which respondent no.3 was not a party and not binding upon till it was brought to the knowledge of the answering respondent. It has further been submitted that applicant initiate contempt proceedings before Honble DRAT by Misc Application no.117/2025 but declined vide order dated 03.06.2025 for any

¶56

14 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶57

such relief not made party in disposal of appeal and disposed of the contempt application and relegated to this tribunal to ventilate applicants' grievances. It has further been submitted that answering respondent has been given ownership and possession of schedule property and cannot be allowed to take stand contrary to Sale Certificate and Registered Sale Certificate issue by respondent FL It has further been submitted that applicant has lost his possession over schedule property but also title and answering respondent become owner after paying entire sale consideration and possession by virtue of sale certificate and registered sale certificate executed by respondent FL It has further been submitted that answering respondent not carried out any structural modification or created third party interest in schedule property. It has further been submitted that answering respondent received • the ownership of property from Sale Certificate dated 26.09.2024 and Registered Sale Certificate dated 23.10.2024 i.e. much before order dated 14.01.2025. It has further been submitted that property had remained inhabited led to considerable deterioration in fittings of electrical, water and toiletry fixtures etc. and answering respondent had to undertaking essential maintenance work prior to shifting and had to incur huge expenses. It has further been submitted that there is no violation of status quo order as possession was already handed

¶58

10,

¶59

' 15 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶60

over much prior to 14.01.2025. It has further been submitted that answering respondent found the applicant putting his own locks on the property and called Police assistance but applicant fled away and this act is grave misconduct and violation of order dated 14.01.2025 and be punished. Therefore, there is no violation of status quo order leaving alone any willful violation of status quo either in terms of ownership or in term of possession and prays for dismissal of application for initiation of contempt proceedings filed by applicant on baseless, vexatious and contrary averments with heavy cost.

¶61

The applicant filed Rejoinder to reply filed by respondent no.1 denied the allegation, comments and reply and submitted that respondent no.1 & 2 have not acknowledged the payments made after issuance of notice u/s 13 (2) the applicant has deposited Rs.59,14,347/- against outstanding demand of Rs.77,66,717/- claimed by respondent no.1. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 despite paying substantial amount raised whimsical amount of Rs.95,30,974/- without adjusting amounts paid and failed to provide statement of account despite repeated requests. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 unlawfully and fraudulently conducted auction on 12.09.2024 without service notice under Rule 8 (6) and 9 (1) after amendment of Section 13(8) at undervalued price for Rs.133.30 lacs and at throw away price

¶62

IIM,, '

¶63

16 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶64

and issued impugned Sale Certificate dated 26.09.2024 in favour of respondent no.3 and not provided any details of amounts deposited. It has further been submitted that value of subject property is above Rs.210.00 lacs and respondents making all possible efforts to earn unlawfully monetary gains from applicant and to party away subject property. It has further been submitted that applicant apprehends violation of Rule 9(2), 9(3) and 9(4) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and liable to be set aside. It has further been submitted that applicant filed IA no.2930/2024 seeking production of auction sale records but no reply submitted by respondent no.1. It has further been submitted that respondents failed to disclose details of encumbrances known in public in the Sale notice dated 01.08.2024.

¶65

SA No.597/2023

¶66

The present SA has been filed by the applicant on 17.10.2023 and amended on 10.02.2024 under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as "the SARFAESI Act, 2002") challenging the validity of the action and rules framed u/s 13(4) under Sarfaesi Act by respondent FI as highly illegal, arbitrary and E-auction notice dated 18.01.2024 against the entire built up property bearing

¶67

17 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶68

no.167, Block-C, Street No.11, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi measuring 70 sq.metres (hereinafter referred as property in question) deserved to be set aside and quashed.

¶69

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is owner of the property in question as per title documents executed and registered with Sub-Registrar and was sanctioned loan facility of Rs.74.50 lacs but released Rs.72.50 lacs from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation on 17.04.2013 as per Loan Agreement to be repaid in 180 EMIs of Rs.99,894/- @14% interest per annum which was exorbitantly higher side. It has further been submitted that the applicant had been paying EMI regularly and paid Rs.82.00 lacs as on date but due to mother fell seriously ill, spent huge amount of hospitalization bills and compensation to one of his factory workers whose arm was badly damaged and amputated. It has further been submitted that due to accumulation of EMIs, Dewan Housing Finance served notice u/s 13 (2) and possession on the mortgaged property therefore applicant filed SA No.312/2014 before DRT-III Delhi and obtained stay. It has further been submitted that Applicant received notice u/s 13 (2) for Rs.77,66,717/- from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation on 27.06.2014 without fulfilling mandatory precondition of declaring the account as NPA as per RBI guidelines without informing the applicant. It has further been

¶70

5d--

¶71

18 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶72

submitted that respondent in their notice dated 27.06.2014 did not mention specific date of declaring the account as NPA with malafide intention to hide its illegalities arbitrarily by depriving applicant from analyzing and raising objections provided under the Act. It has further been submitted that applicant deposited Rs.4.26 lacs immediately with Dewan Housing Finance Corporation after due discussions and there was no intention to default. It has further been submitted that respondent FI pasted notice dated 08.09.2014 to handover the possession of the property in question and applicant immediately filed SA No.312/2014 thereby challenged the illegal invocation of SARFAESI Act and praying for quashing the action and also to restrain Dewan Housing Finance Corporation and / or Ld. Receiver to take possession. It has further been submitted that the applicant in compliance of order dated 22.10.2014 deposited Rs.2.00 lacs as directed by Tribunal and till 30.12.2015 paid almost Rs.20.00 lacs post issuance of notice u/s 13 (2) and wrong declaration of account as NPA. It has further been submitted that Dewan Housing Finance Corporation obtained possession order thru Court Receiver which issued notice dated 31.10.2017 to deliver property in question i.e. secured asset on 18.11.2017. It has further been submitted that the applicant filed WP no.10633/2017 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and vide order dated 29.11.2017,

¶73

19 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶74

directed the applicant to deposit Rs.9.00 lacs but applicant did not appear before the Court on the false assurance given by Dewan Housing Corporation for settlement in the account resulting petition was dismissed in default on 13.04.2018. It has further been submitted that applicant filed application to restore Writ Petition and Hon'ble Court directed to file an affidavit of undertaking to deposit Rs.15.00 lacs on same day & further Rs.44.00 lacs in two instalments on or before 27.09.2018 & then modified to 31.10.2018. It has further been submitted that the applicant deposited Rs.15.00 lacs only but unable to comply the Court's directions due to financial losses resulting the petition was dismissed along with pending applications. It has further been submitted that applicant filed Appeal (C) No.33834/2018 before Hon'ble Supreme Court which directed the applicant to deposit Rs.39.00 lacs vide order dated 01.09.2019 and extended the time till 08.03.2019 as last opportunity passing order for automatic disposal of SLP, in case amount is not deposited within extended time period. It has further been submitted that the applicant could comply the directions partially got SLP dismissed automatically. It has further been submitted that Dewan Housing Finance Corporation obtained order dated 22.05.2019 from Ld.CMM Delhi u/s 14 and Id. Court Receiver issued notice dated 15.07.2019 for taking physical possession of property on

¶75

20 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶76

24.07.2019 It has further been submitted that applicant filed WP (C) No.8392/2019 praying for restraining the possession of property in question and setting aside order dated 22.05.2019 and direction to supply statement of account which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court on 05.08.2019. It has further been submitted that applicant filed LPA No.523/2019 before Hon'ble High Court Division Bench against order dated 05.08.2019 which directed the applicant to deposit Rs.40.00 lacs by DD fvg. Registrar General by 19.08.2019 which was also dismissed due to non-appearance of the applicant. It has further been submitted that applicant has deposited Rs.59,14,347/- after issuance of notice u/s 13 (2) till 2022 out of total payment of Rs.82.00 lacs. It has further been submitted that applicant shocked to found notice dated 23.02.2023 u/s 13 (2) from Piramal Capital & Housing Finance for Rs.95,30,974/- as on 31.01.2023 without any detail and breakup of the amount along with overdue charges and showing closing balance of Rs.50,50,415/- and interest Rs.5,15,788/- as additional interest on EMI not to be charged as per law. It has further been submitted that applicant never dealt with Piramal Capital & Housing Finance in any manner and respondent FI i.e. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation never intimated any merger / acquisition took place with Piramal Capital & Housing Finance and taking over of the account. It has further been

¶77

Scf

¶78

21 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶79

submitted that notice u/s 13 (2) dated 23.02.2023 cannot be issued as claimed by Piramal Capital & Housing Finance as per law without disclosing the details of capacity to issue in place of Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. It has further been submitted that as per said notice dated 23.02.2023, NPA classification of account date as 09.12.2019 whereas earlier notice dated 27.06.2014 allegedly issued by Dewan Housing Finance without NPA date. It has further been submitted that credit worthiness of applicant has affected due to arbitrary actions of respondent FIs, spent huge sums to save their house, physical possession of which was taken over by Dewan Housing Finance Corporation on 16.12.2023 thus entitled to get physical possession with damages and compensation from DHFL as well as respondents. It has further been submitted that applicant filed appeal against orders dated 14.12.2023 & 16.12.2023 of this Tribunal before DRAT which was withdrawn as JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (claiming to be assignee of respondent herein) issued E-Auction sale notice dated 18.01.2024 for meagre amount of Rs.133.20 lacs for sale thru auction on 27.02.2024 and published in bankauctions.in website against fair market value of property at Rs.214.90 lacs. It has further been submitted that as per settled law of various courts that public money should be recovered but it does not mean that respondent FI work like property dealers and

¶80

22 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶81

dispose of the secured assets in arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of statutory provisions. It has further been submitted that notice of sale is defected as no such notice under Rule 8 (6) was given / served upon the applicant in clear breach of Rule 8 (7) (a) and wrong description of property in question as description of property at FLAT but is two storied building with roof rights. It has further been submitted that E-auction notice dated 18.01.2024 by respondent no.2 deserved to be quashed and be set aside as property has been undervalued. It has further been submitted that E-auction notice was not at all served as mandatorily under Rule 8(6) of security Interest (Enforcement) to the applicant and applicant came to know from his son on 25.01.2014. It has further been submitted that under Rule 9 (1), no sale of property should take place before expiry of 30 days from publication under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 or service of individual notice to borrower. It has further been submitted that various notice issued under the Act as "ESS ESS PRODUCTS" D-91/92/2 Gali No.2, Mohan Puri, New Delhi110001." and deliberately chose not to serve the applicant in grave violation of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. It has further been submitted that e-auction notice neither published in newspapers in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality nor affixed on conspicuous part of property in question as per proviso attached to Rule 8 (6) of

¶82

23 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶83

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. It has further been submitted that publication of notice in vernacular language in newspaper having wide circulation give publicity which enable borrower to know his property is auctioned on particular date and give opportunity to redeem the property. It has further been submitted that DHFCL has accepted the offer of Rs.39.00 lacs by accepting Rs.26 lacs and as per Section 8 of Indian Contact Act 1872, which states that "Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration: Performance of the conditions of a proposal or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal." It has further been submitted that new management refused to accept the proposal on the ground that is in process of taking over DHFCL and asked to deposit Rs.10.00 lacs towards certain charges and respondent FI issued notice u/s 13(4) for Rs.95,30,974/-. It has further been submitted that applicant is staying in the dwelling unit with aged parents, family and mentally retarded sister and prays that there will be no default in future. Accordingly, it has been prayed for allowing the present securitization application as actions of Respondent FI deserves to be set aside and quashed in the interest of justice.

¶84

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI has vehemently opposed the submission of Ld. Counsel for the

¶85

24 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶86

applicants and submitted that due to some technical issue, the respondent FI withdrawn the auction notice dated 18.01.2024 for auction on 27.02.2024. It has further been submitted that applicant along with Mrs. Shabana Parveen as co-borrower availed loan facility of Rs.74.50 lacs from Piramal Capital Housing Finance Limited (formerly known as DHFL) in April 2013 by executing various facility documents and created security interest in property bearing no."Freehold entire built up property / house bearing no.167, Block C-11 area measuring 70 sq.metre shown in the layout plant of Ghonda, residential scheme, presently known as Yamuna Vihar, Delhi with roof rights". It has further been submitted that applicant started default in repayment of EMIs as per terms and conditions of Loan Agreement and account was declared NPA on 09.12.2019 as per RBI guidelines. It has further been submitted that respondent FI initiated recovery action under Sarfaesi Act by issuing notice u/s 13 (2) to the borrowers on 23.02.2023 for Rs.95,30,974/- sent through registered post duly published in newspapers on 16.03.2023 having sufficient circulation in the area. It has further been submitted' that the applicant raised their objection to the said demand notice dated 23.02.2023 u/s 13 (3A) on 25.05.2023 beyond limitation period of 60 days and replied the objection notice on 05.06.2023 by Respondent no.1 FI. It has further been submitted that respondent No.1 FI took

¶87

25 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶88

symbolic possession of property in question on 29.08.2023 as per SARFAESI rules and duly published in newspapers on 30.08.2023. It has further been submitted that the respondent No.1 FI obtained order from Ld.CMM, Delhi vide order dated 20.11.2023 for physical possession thru Court Receiver who fixed the possession on 16.12.2023. It has further been submitted that applicant filed SA no.312/2014 which was dismissed on 08.05.2018 for non-prosecution. It has further been submitted that applicant filed W.P.(C) 10633/2017 before Hon'ble High Court, Delhi for direction for not taking coercive actions against the property in question and submitted to pay all outstanding amount to respondent no.1 FI and will pay Rs.9.00 lacs by PO/DD with Register General on or before 04.12.2017 vide order dated 29.11.2017 but not complied the directions of Hon'ble High Court Delhi and subsequently the writ petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution vide order dated 13.04.2018. It has further been submitted that applicant filed application for restoration of the writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi issued notice vide order dated 26.07.2018 and applicant undertaken to make deposit of Rs.15.00 lacs on same day and Rs.44.00 lacs in two equal installments on or before 27.09.2018 and failing which will hand over the possession of property in question to respondent No.1 FI. It has further been submitted that the applicant failed to deposit

¶89

26 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶90

said amount resulting writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2018 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It has further been submitted that applicant again filed an application bearing no.C.M.No.46528 of 2018 in W.P.(C) 10633 of 2017 for modification of order dated 31.10.2018 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 22.11.2018 after seeing the conduct of the applicant. It has further been submitted that applicant filed SLP no.33834/2018 before Hon'ble Supreme Court which vide order dated 15.01.2019 observed that: "...considering the fact that assurance was given by the petitioner before the High Court from time to time and the final assurance given on 22.11.2018 has also not been complied, no further indulgence is warranted in this Special Leave Petition". It has further been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted final opportunity to deposit Rs.39.00 lacs before 01.02.2019 payable as per order dated 22.11.2018 on repeated request by the applicant but not complied and accordingly filed IA No.29449/2019 in aforesaid SLP and vide order dated 27.02.2019 was dismissed. It has further been submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court extended time till 08.03.2019 to deposit entire amount of Rs.39.00 lacs by the applicant failing which SLP shall be treated as dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court but again applicant failed to do so. It has further been submitted

¶91

27 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶92

that respondent No.1 FI initiated fresh SARFAESI proceedings for recovery, the applicant filed this application challenging the Ld. Court Receiver notice and praying for restraining the possession of the property which was dismissed on 14.12.2023 by this Tribunal. It has further been submitted that applicant again filed application no.4788/2023 for restraining Respondent FI from taking physical possession of secured asset. It has further been submitted that Respondent No.1 FI had taken the possession of property on 16.12.2023 in compliance of order dated 16.12.2023 and assigned the loan account to Respondent no.2 i.e. JM Finance Asset Reconstruction Company vide Assignment Deed dated 29.03.2023. It has further been submitted that respondent no.2 issued Sale Notice dated 18.01.2024 for e-auction of property on 27.02.2024 which was withdrawn as sufficient time not given by the respondent no.2 inadvertently under Section 8 (6) of SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, it has been prayed for dismissal of the present securitization application as the applicant is willful defaulter and not complied the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

¶93

Ld. Counsel for the auction purchaser has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submission of the applicants and he has also supported the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the

¶94

28 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶95

respondent FI. He further submitted that the auction purchased has deposited the entire auction amount to the respondent FI as per law and accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of the present securitization applications.

¶96

I.A. No.2947/2025.

¶97

The present application has been filed on behalf of the securitization applicants praying therein to take on record the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application no.1304 of 2019 (in SLP no.33834/2018).

¶98

It has been submitted on behalf of the securitization applicants that the order dated 23.07.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Misc. Application No.1304 of 2019 be taken on record as it relates to the direction passed by this Tribunal regarding clarification about the compliance of orders dated 15.01.2019, 31.01.2019 27.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has further been submitted that when the applicant moved a Misc. Application No.1304 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for tendering payment to Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by order dated

¶99

23.07.2019, directed the applicant to tender the

¶100

29 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶101

payments in terms of the order dated 23.07.2019 alongwith interest for the delayed period. It has further been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India pardoned the applicant for the purported noncompliance of order dated 23.07.2019 passed in No.1304 of 20 19 and afforded the opportunity to the applicant to approach the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. for payment with interest. It has further been submitted that in compliance of the said order, the applicant got prepared the DD No.508932 dated 13.08.2019 in favour of the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. and the said draft was accepted by the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. without any objection as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in view of the aforesaid development; Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. did not take possession which was scheduled for 16.08.2019. It has further been submitted that soon thereafter RBI preferred the petition for initiation of CIRP of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., which petition was admitted by order dated 03.12.2019. It has further been submitted that the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., did not accept further payment

¶102

30 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶103

which the applicant continued to offer and accordingly, the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., violated the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India order dated 23.07.2019 and the failure of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., to except further payment cannot be attributed to applicant in any manner whatsoever, if Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., had accepted further payment from the applicant, the loan account would have been liquidated long time above.

¶104

Ld. Counsels for the respondent FI and the auction purchaser have strongly opposed for allowing the present application.

¶105

Heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the records.

¶106

Apparently, by way of the present application the present securitization applicant wants to take on record the copy of the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Misc. Application No.1304 of 2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.07.2019 has observed as under:

¶107

¶108

SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶109

"We are not inclined to entertain this Misc. Application.

¶110

However, it will be open to the applicant to pursue with the respondent-corporation for grant of further time to deposit the balance amount along with interest, if any, as demanded by the respondent. The Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly"

¶111

After going through the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court this Tribunal of the view that no prejudice would be caused upon the respondent FI as well as auction purchaser if the aforesaid order is taken on record. Accordingly, the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is taken on record.

¶112

With the aforesaid observation, the present application being I.A. No 2947/2025 stands disposed off.

¶113

Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the records of the securitization applications thoroughly.

¶114

In the present matter, admittedly the borrower has availed the loan facilities from the respondent FI against the mortgage of the property in question. Apparently, there is default on the part of the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor in

¶115

paying the dues of the respondent FI and the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor have failed to pay the dues of the respondent FI and thereafter the account was declared as

¶116

¶117

SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶118

NPA on 09.12.2019. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the respondent FI has failed to dispose of the representation of the applicant as per Section 13 (3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the respondent FI has failed to serve the symbolic possession notice as well as sale notice as per the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and conducted the auction without following due process and even there is misdescription of the property in question in the demand notice, symbolic possession notice and sale notice. He further argued that after the issuance of the demand notice the applicant has already deposited with the respondent FI more than Rs.44.00 lakhs against the demanded amount of Rs.95.30 lakhs. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the respondent FI that the respondent FI has served the demand notice, symbolic possession notice and sale notice as per the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the property in question has been auctioned as per law. He further argued that the applicant is willful defaulter because he has not deposited the amount with the respondent FI in view of the interim protection granted by the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and accordingly it has been prayed for dismissal of these securitization applications.

¶119

Apparently, the demand notice dated 2102.2023 (RW-

¶120

1/11) under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was

¶121

33 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶122

issued by the respondent FI thereby demanding a sum of Rs.95,30,974/- and the same was served upon all the borrower/mortgagor and the even said demand notice was served through publication in newspapers Pioneer on 16.03.2023 and accordingly, the said demand notice was served upon the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor as per Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Thereafter, the said demand notice was replied by the applicant vide objection dated 25.05.2023 (RW-1/13), though the same was given after 60 days, but the same was duly disposed by the respondent FI vide its letter dated 05.06.2023 (RW-1/14) and thus the said objection was disposed of by the respondent FL Further, on perusal of the records, it appears that the symbolic possession notice dated 29.08.2023 under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been served upon all the borrowers/guarantors/ mortgagors as per the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Further, on perusal of the record it appears that the sale notice dated 29.07.2024 has also been served upon the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor as per the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶123

In the present matter, feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondent FI under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the applicant has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filling a writ petition no.10633/2017 wherein the applicant was directed to

¶124

34 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶125

pay certain amounts to the DHFL, but the applicant has failed to deposit the same amount and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 22.11.2018 passed in W.P. (c) no.10633/2017 has observed as under:

¶126

Order dated 22.11.2018:

¶127

The writ petition was dismissed by us on 31st October, 2018 by a detailed order offer refusing to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of recovery initiated against the petitioner under the 5ARFAESI Act. The present application has been filed for modification of the order and granting time to the petitioner to make the deposit as assured to this Court while hearing the matter on 29th November, 201Z

¶128

2. By a detailed order passed by us on 31st October, 2018, we have considered various factors and dismissed the writ petition finding the petitioner not to have complied with different directions issued by this Court from time to time. Now again, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court on sympathetic consideration and has filed an application for modification/review of our order dated 31st October, 2018. We, on 2nd November, 2018 made indulgence into the matter and directed the petitioner to file an affidavit indicating the manner in which he proposes to pay the dues. The matter was then directed to be listed on 12th November, 2018. On 12th November, 2018, the petitioner did not file the affidavit. We directed him to file the same by the next date of hearing and the matter was directed to be listed on 19th November, 2018. On 19th November, 2018, the matter was adjourned and was listed today.

¶129

3. The affidavit in compliance with the order passed by us on 2nd November, 2018 is filed only on 13th November, 2018 meaning thereby that even though the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit before 12th November, 2018, he again committed a default and did not file the affidavit by 12th February, 2018 and filed it only after time was granted to him. A perusal of the affidavit goes to show that the petitioner again wants time to comply with the order and according to the time frame prayed for, he says he will pay R5.5 lakhs on 28th November, 2018, R5.14 lakhs by 30th December, 2018 and the remaining Rs.20 lakhs by 30th January, 2019.

¶130

4. We are informed that the application filed by the petitioner before the DRAT being 5.A.312/2014 has been dismissed on 8th May, 2018 and we find that right from 29th November, 2017, the petitioner has been granted indulgence of this Court by granting him various facilities for deposit of

¶131

35 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶132

the amount and even though a year's time has been granted, he has failed to comply with these orders and now wants further time which in our considered view is not justified. From the conduct and attitude of the applicant/petitioner we find that except for buying time and seeking adjustment from this Court, the petitioner is not serious enough in clearing the dues of the bank and it seems that he is only interested in delaying the process of recovery.

¶133

5. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances, we see no reason to make any further indulgence into the matter. The application stands dismissed..."

¶134

That since the applicant has not complied with the aforesaid direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, therefore, the applicant has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filling a Special Leave Petition no.33834/2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.01.2019 has observed as under:

¶135

Order dated 15.01.2019:

¶136

" Considering the fact that assurance was given by the petitioner before the High Court from time to time and the final assurance given on 22.11.2018 has also not been complied, no further indulgence is warranted in this Special Leave Petition.

¶137

However, on the repeated request made by the petitioner, we grant him final opportunity to deposit Rs.39 lakhs, as is payable in terms of order dated 22.11.2018, before 01.02.2019, failing which the special leave petition shall • stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. 7711 08.02.2019, status quo as of today be maintained in respect of the attached properties in question, The amount be deposited in this Court within the specified time.

¶138

Subject to above, list the matter on .08.022019..."

¶139

Further, the applicant has also not complied with the aforesaid order dated 15.01.2019 of Hon'ble Supreme Court and accordingly he has also filed an IA no.29449/2019 in. the

¶140

36 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶141

aforesaid SLP and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated

¶142

27.02.2019 has observed as under:

¶143

Order dated 27.02.2019:

¶144

This Court had passed conditional self-operating order on 15.01.2019 whereby time was given to the applicant to deposit Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Only) on or before 01.02.2019. The applicant has failed to comply with the said direction, as a result of which the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

¶145

By this application, the applicant seeks further time to deposit the amount. For the reasons mentioned in the application, as a last opportunity, we extend the time till 08.03.2019 as assurance is given by the applicant through counsel that the amount will be deposited in the Registry of this Court on or before 08.03.2019. If the entire amount of Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Only) is not deposited on or before 08.03.2019, the Special Leave petition shall be treated as dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court

¶146

Subject to above, the SLP is restored and only if the order is complied in time, it may be listed for further hearing on 12.03.2019...."

¶147

Admittedly, the applicant has not complied with the aforesaid orders dated 15.01.2019 and 27.02.2019 of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order dated 22.11.2018 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and keeping in view of the conduct of the applicant, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has not come with clean hands because he has not complied with the repeated directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and even he has no sanctity towards the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Even otherwise, there is no illegality or irregularity in the

¶148

37 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶149

measures taken by the respondent FI under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 qua the property in question and accordingly, the present securitization applications are liable to be dismissed.

¶150

In view of the above facts and circumstances and SARFAESI Act and Rules, this Tribunal is of the affirmed view that the respondent FI has followed the mandatory procedures as laid down under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, while initiating the measures under the SARFAESI Act and as per Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Further, the applicant has not complied with the repeated directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, in view of the conduct of the applicant and since there is no illegality or irregularity in the measures taken by the respondent FI under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 qua the property in question, therefore, the present securitization applications are liable to be dismissed.

¶151

(ORDER)

¶152

These two SARFAESI Applications filed by the applicants stands dismissed along with pending applications, if any, and the respondent FI is at liberty to proceed further to recover its

¶153

38 SA no.340/2024 and SA no.597/2023

¶154

dues as per law. The present order be uploaded immediately

¶155

on the website of this Tribunal.

¶156

Final Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 16th January, 2026.

¶157

Dictated & Corrected by me.

¶158

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-I, Delhi