Partly allowed

Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar v. Canara Bank

DRT18 Jul 2026SA/403/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined a Securitisation Application challenging an e-auction sale and prior recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act. While the applicant waived challenges to earlier steps via an undertaking, the Tribunal found the subsequent auction sale violated mandatory notice provisions and set it aside.

What did the court decide?

The e-auction sale dated 16.08.2025 is set aside. Auction purchasers are entitled to return the auction amount with interest.

Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶5

Date of Institution: 25.08.2025

¶6

Date of Decision: 18.07.2026

¶7

Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar Proprietor of S.B. International

¶8

Bhoomi Bhavik Thakkar Both 1 & 2 having address at Flat No.601 on the 6^th Floor in G Wing, Building No.2, Kukreja Palace, CST No.195/3A and 195/3B, Vallabh Baug Lane Extinction, Near Police Hockey Maidan, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077

¶9

Shashikant O Thakkar Having address at Flat No.5390, 4rd Floor, Building No.195, Dharam Bhaskar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Paras Building, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 075 … Applicants Versus

¶10

Canara Bank Ltd. Having its Branch at Sujee House, 74/76, Kazi Sayed Street, Mandvi branch, Mumbai- 400 003

¶11

Naren Premchand Nagda Flat No.1101, 11^th Floor, Lotas Heights CHS, 15^th Road, Near Gandhi Maidan, Chembur, Mumbai400 071.

¶12

Page 1 of 11

¶13

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶14

Chandu Mularam Tungaria Plot No.1002, 10^th Floor, Building No.12, Chembur Kanishka CHSL, Shell Colony Road, Shankar Nagar No.1, Kurla, Chembur Mumbai- 400 071. …Respondents

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicants	: Ms Savita	Nangare and Mr
	Vinod Nag	ula and Ms Disha
	Shah i/b Advocates	M/s. Law Focus -
For Respondent No.1	: Mr Charles Sudhir Gup Advocates	De Souza a/w Mr ta i/b Mr O.A Das–
For Respondent No.2	Mr Shirish	Ruparel
For Respondent No.3	None

¶17

Final Order

¶18

(1) The present Securitisation Application No.403 of 2025 is filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 challenging the measures taken by the Respondent Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶19

(2) The Applicant filed the present S.A. to quash and set aside the Demand Notice dated 30.12.2014, Sale Notice dated 25.07.2025 and Order dated 22.07.2025 passed in pursuance of the earlier Order dated 21.08.2015 under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 passed by the Ld. CMM and

¶20

Page 2 of 11

¶21

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶22

the notice of court commissioner dated 22.08.2025 issued in pursuance of the order dated 22.07.2025 in respect of properties being (i) Flat No.601 on the 6^th Floor in G Wing, Building No.2, Kukreja Palace, CSTN0.195/3A and 195/3B, Vallabh Baug Lane Extension, Near Police Hockey Maidan, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400077 (“Secured Asset No.1”) and (ii) Flat No.5390, 3^rd Floor, Building No.195, Dharam Bhaskar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Paras Building, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 4000075 (“Secured Asset No.2”) .

¶23

Factual matrix of the case:

¶24

(3) That the Applicants stated that they are the owners of the Secured Assets, wherein Secured Asset No.l is jointly owned by the Applicant No.l and 2 and the Secured Asset No.2 is owned by the Applicant No.3.

¶25

(4) That the Applicant No.1 availed credit facility for a sum of Rs.1.60 Crore in January 2011, and the same were enhanced and the last sanction was granted for sum of Rs.6 Crore in 2012-13. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant further stated that due to market recession and financial losses, the Applicant No.1 failed to repay the loan amount and the account of Applicant No.1 was classified as NPA.

¶26

Page 3 of 11

¶27

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶28

(5) That the Respondent No.1 issued demand notice dated 30.12.2014 under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, thereafter, without issuing notice the Respondent bank issued notice under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent Bank directly approached the Ld. CMM under section 14 and obtained the order dated 21.08.2015 against the secured assets of the Applicants.

¶29

(6) That pursuant thereof, court commissioner issued warrant of possession on 15.12.2015 for taking possession of the secured assets on 18.01.2016. That being aggrieved by the above action the Applicant filed the SA No.62 of 2016, challenging the measures taken by the Respondent bank under section 13(2), 13(4), 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Applicants further stated that the above SA No.62 of 2016 was disposed off on 18.07.2016 pursuant to the undertaking filed by the Applicants.

¶30

(7) That the Applicants sometime in March 2023, approached the Respondent Bank for settlement of its outstanding dues, however, the Respondent has not considered the same and rejected the said OTS proposal of the Applicants.

¶31

(8) That the Applicants stated that on 09.08.2025, the Applicants received Sale Notice dated 25.07.2025 of the Respondent. The sale notice affixed on the secured asset No.1 on 11.07.2025, and not on secured asset No.2.

¶32

Page 4 of 11

¶33

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶34

(9) That the Respondent bank filed MA No.9 of 2026 before Ld. CMM for reappointment of court commissioner. In pursuance of the illegal and untenable order dated 22.07.2025 of the Ld. CMM, the Applicants received a writ of commission dated 22.08.2025 for taking forceable possession of the secured assets on 10.09.2025.

¶35

(10) That the Applicants stated that the Respondent sent sale notice on 08.08.2025 which was delivered to the Applicants on 12.08.2025 apart from that the Respondent Bank was required to affix the said notice at conspicuous part of the secured assets. However, Respondent only affixed the notice on secured asset No.1 and not on secured asset No.2, therefore, there is breach of Rule 8(6) Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Respondent has not provided valuation report based on which the reserve price of the secured assets has been fixed.

¶36

(11) That the Respondent has sold the secured assets to Respondent No.2 & 3 i.e. auction purchasers. The Respondent Bank issued sale certificate in the name of Respondent No.2 & 3 and the same is registered.

¶37

(12) In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the S.A. No.403 of 2025 should be allowed. Reply to Respondent No.1, Bank:

¶38

Page 5 of 11

¶39

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶40

(13) Ld. Advovate stated that lastly the property viz, Flat No.601 has been sold on 16.08.2025 for a sum of Rs.2,88,50,000/- and second property Flat No.5390 was sold on 16.08.2025 for a sum of Rs.83,97,000/-. The sale is confirmed and the purchaser deposited the entire slae proceeds. Accordingly, sale certificate is issued and registered. Therefore, there is no merit in the S.A. and it may be dismissed with costs. Ld. Advocate further stated that once sale is confirmed and sale certificate is registered, the sale cannot be set aside.

¶41

(14) Ld. Advocate also stated that the S.A is grossly time barred to the extent of challenging notice issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Respondent Bank has taken symbolic possession under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 17.03.2015. The Applicant has filed an S.A. No.62 of 2016 and the same was disposed of after the Applicants have filed an Undertaking and the subsequent contempt of Court order. Therefore, the Applicants cannot challenge the notice issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The present S.A. is filed on 25.08.2025 challenging the notice issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) by the Respondent Bank. Ld. Advocate also submitted that since the earlier S.A. has been disposed of, after undertaking filed by the

¶42

Page 6 of 11

¶43

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶44

Applicants, now the Applicants cannot challenge the notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, the present S.A. is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

¶45

(15) Hence, there is no merit in the present S.A. No.403 of 2025 and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶46

(16) Ld. Advocate for Respondent No.2 orally argued and submitted that the sale was conducted properly in accordance with the provisions of the law and prays for rejection of the present S.A.

¶47

(17) Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties, considered their contentions. Perused the record.

¶48

(18) From the perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that previous S.A. No.62 of 2016 filed by the Applicants was dismissed for noncompliance of order dated 18.07.2016. In that S.A. No.62 of 2016, this Tribunal passed an order dated 06.06.2016 that in view of the Applicants’ request that his mother had undergone coronary Angioplasty on 02.06.2016 and was advised bed rest for 30 days. The Respondent Bank was restrained from taking physical possession of suit property till 15.07.2016 subject to furnishing an undertaking by the Applicant to handover the physical possession of the suit property to Respondent Bank on 16.07.2016 without any demure. The Applicants filed undertaking on the same day before this Tribunal. However, he failed

¶49

Page 7 of 11

¶50

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶51

to provide vacant possession of the suit property to the Respondent Bank.

¶52

(19) Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the Applicants could not delivered peaceful vacant possession as the Civil Court, Masaudi, District Patna, in Civil Suit No.06 of 2016 had appointed receiver for taking over the possession of the properties.

¶53

(20) The court commissioner has also mentioned this fact in his report. However, it is not answered that even after, dismissal of that, for default by order dated 18.03.2025 why the Applicant did not deliver peaceful possession to the Respondent Bank.

¶54

(21) The Applicants have challenged the demand notice dated 30.12.2014 and order of Ld. CJM passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. In this regard, it is significant to mentioned that after furnishing an undertaking dated 06.06.2016, the Applicants have waived statutory rights due to waiver regarding the measures taken by Respondent Bank before 06.06.2016.

¶55

(22) In the present S.A. No.403 of 2025, the Applicants mainly challenged the subsequent auction sale conducted on 16.08.2025 saying that the Respondent Bank intentionally not provided minimum 15 days’ notice as per proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It was also argued on behalf of the Applicants that

¶56

Page 8 of 11

¶57

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶58

the above auction sale clearly indicates the Respondent Bank was having hands in galvos with the auction purchaser and both were in collusive while conducting e-auction sale dated 16.08.2025 in pursuance of sale notice dated 25.07.2025 which was not served properly in accordance with law. (23) It was the contention of Ld. Advocate for Respondent Bank and auction purchaser that the sale has already been conducted, the auction purchasers has paid the entire sale proceeds and the sale certificate has been issued and registered. The Applicants now cannot challenge the above sale. The Ld. Advocate for Respondent Bank also drew the attention of this Tribunal towards the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Celir LLP Vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727 . This Tribunal gets guidance from the above principles laid down in that case by Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶59

(24) In this respect, it is undisputed in the matter that the Respondent Bank sent the sale notice dated 25.07.2025 by post on 08.08.2025 to the Applicants i.e., after keeping it with them for 14 days which was served upon the Applicants on 12.08.2025, just before 4 days of e-auction sale dated 16.08.2025 which clearly established that minimum 15 days sale notice was not served upon

¶60

Page 9 of 11

¶61

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶62

the Applicants by the authorised officer of Respondent Bank which shows that there was a material irregularity which goes to the root of the matter.

¶63

(25) It is well established principle of law that the validity of an auction conducted under the statutory regime is not to be tested on equitable considerations but strictly on the ground whether the mandate of the statute and the rules has been breached or not. This Tribunal gets guidance on this point from the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Vasumathi Vs.

¶64

Authorised Officer & Others 2026 SCC OnLine

¶65

SC 1103 . Hence, the mere factum that the sale stood confirm cannot, therefore, foreclosed judicial scrutiny.

¶66

(26) In view of the above, the Applicants have partially proved their case for interference under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 only with regard to e-auction sale dated 16.08.2025 but failed to make out any case regarding any previous measures taken by Respondent Bank i.e., prior to the undertaking filed in earlier S.A. No.62 of 2016 dated 06.06.2016. Accordingly, the following order:

¶67

Order

¶68

(I) The Securitisation Application No.403 of 2025 partly allowed only with regard to e-auction sale dated 16.08.2025. Hence, that e-auction sale dated

¶69

Page 10 of 11

¶70

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2025

¶71

Radhika

¶72

16.08.2025 is hereby set aside. The auction purchasers are entitled to get back the auction amount with the prevailing rate of interest of fixed deposit lying with the Respondent Bank.

¶73

(II) IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶74

(III) No order as to costs.

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

(Harish Kumar Kaushik) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶77

Page 11 of 11

Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar v. Canara 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

Harshada Biharilal Shah versus Rbl Bank Limited

Midas Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. versus Axis Bank

Mrs Anjali Harsad Modi versus State Bank of India

Smt Chhaya Kale versus The Akola Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Lakshmanan Ramaswamy

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Aafreen