Disposed

Shahjad Uddin v. Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

DRT23 Feb 2026SA/485/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Securitization Application concerned a dispute over foreclosure proceedings initiated by the Respondent NBFC under SARFAESI Act. Applicants challenged non-service of notices and classification of the account as NPA. The Tribunal attempted settlement, fixed a payment deadline, and disposed of the application, allowing proceedings to continue if unconditional payment was not made. Compliance wi

What did the court decide?

Fixed deadline for payment of Rs. 15.00 Lakrs.; possession to be returned on full payment within one week.

Shahjad Uddin versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA no.485/2025

¶2

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIMAL GUPTA

¶4

DATE OF RESERVED OF ORDER : 20.02.2026 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 23.02.2026

¶5

SA No.- 485/2025

¶6

Shri Shajad Uddin S/o Shri Abdul Majid aged about 43 years R/o Plot no. 9, Gopal Colony, Vishvjyoti S.School Ke Pass, Dhol Mela Ground, Tehsil Baran Dist. Baran, Rajasthan.

¶7

………Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Aadhar Housing Finance Limited through its authorized representative, Plot no.11, 2nd Floor, Gumanpura Thane ke pass, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶10

Respondent Bank/FI

¶11

Mrs. Sajida Shahjad (1st CO BORROWER) R/o Kousar colony Baran Baran Baran Baran Rajasthan, 325205

¶12

Mr. Sirajuddin Molnuuddin (2nd CO BORROWER) R/o Ward no. 34 Koushar colony Talab Pada Baran Baran Baran Rajasthan, 325205. 4. Mr. Mohammad Shafik (GURANTOR) R/o Gopal Colony, Tehsil Baran Dist. Baran, Rajasthan.

¶13

Performa-Respondent

¶14

Present:

¶15

Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Sharma & Sh. Sunil Kumar Jangir, Counsel for the Applicant

¶16

Sh. Rajpal Dhankar, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

SA no.485/2025

(Final Order)

(23.02.2026)

It is pleaded that loan was given in September, 2018, Applicants started depositing EMI's w.e.f. 10.10.2018 and continued to pay the same till 10.09.2022. A copy of statement of loan account is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- O2.

¶23

Applicant submits that they were inclined for foreclosure of the loan accounts and therefore, requested the respondent to consider for one-time settlement of the account. Consequent thereto, the Respondent issued a letter dated 17.09.2O22 wherein, the amount payable for foreclosure was mentioned as Rs. 19,50,527.60

¶24

Applicants humbly submits that he disputed the amount proposed in foreclosure by the Respondent NBFC as the Applicants has availed the loan facility of Rs. 13,20,000/- out of which 4,80,000/were already deposited before the negotiations for foreclosure.

¶25

The Respondent NBFC alleged released of loan facility of Rs. 14,39,000/- which is contrary to the record. Resultantly, rather than acceding to the request of Applicants, Respondent NBFC declared the loan account of the Applicants as NPA in arbitrary fashion and without following the procedure prescribed in the Act of 2002.

¶26

That while classifying the account of the Applicants as NPA, Respondent failed to make compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 read with Rule 3 of the Rules of 2002, which mandates for issuance of notice Under Section the Rules of 2002.

¶27

That though the Applicants were in regular touch with the Respondent NBFC for settlement of the account, the Respondent NBFC failed to serve 13 (2) and service of notice under the Rule 3 of 6 & accede to the request of the Applicants.

¶28

That the Respondent NBFC filed an application Under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 for physical possession of the property in question that consequent to the filing of Application Under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the Learned Court below without issuing

SA no.485/2025

notices to the Applicants, allowed the Application filed by the Respondent.

¶33

That a bare perusal of the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 would demonstrate that Applicants were not heard before passing of the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 and consequential actions of taking possession of the property in question are bad in law.

¶34

That a bare perusal of the order dated 27.03.2023 would also demonstrate that the Learned Court below has accepted the contention of Respondent NBFC with regard to service of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act.

¶35

It is pleaded that the Learned Court below did not bothered to issue notices to the Applicants before proceedings Under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 that the Applicants have always maintained financial disciplines in respect of the loan facility in question. The dispute occurred only at the time of request for foreclosure, as the Respondent NBFC was claiming of release of loan amount of Rs. 14,39,000/- rather than of Rs. 13,20,000/ -.

¶36

That consequent to the issuance of the order dated 27.03.2023, Respondent along with the Police Forces obtained physical possession of the property in question on 28.08.2023. A copy of the statutory notice as affixed on the wall of the property in question along with the notice pasted on the wall of the property in question is annexed herewith. That the Respondent NBFC after wrongly declaring the Applicants as NPA, proceed to issue the alleged notice Under Section 13 (2) dated 18.07.2022. It would be relevant to mention here that the Respondent failed to serve the said demand notice on the S.A. Applicants. As such, the Respondent NBFC has deprived the S.A. Applicants of their valuable right of making representations cum objections under Section 13 (3-A) of the Act of 2OO2. Therefore, on this ground, the entire proceedings stands vitiated and are liable to be quashed.

¶37

That the subject demand notice was required to contain all the details as per the provisions contained under section 13 (3) of the SARFAESI Act and the Respondent NBFC ought to have mentioned

SA no.485/2025

all the details of dues such thereby bifurcating the principal amount already paid by the S.A. Applicants, rate of interest, penal interest, quantum of interest, cost, charges etc. in the demand notice under reference in the light of recent pronouncement by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of "Punjab National Bank vs. M/s. Mithilanchal Industries hrt. Ltd." As such, the Respondent has to prove that the demand notice under reference contains all the details of the complete and correct details of the secured assets, the demand notice under reference is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶42

That it is also submitted that the Respondent Bank has debited the interest at the exorbitant rates and has also debited and capitalized the penal interest in the subject accounts. The rate of interest was required to be decreased from time to time however, instated of decreasing the rate of interest the Respondent NBFC continued to charge interest at higher rates so as to inflate the liability of the S.A. Applicants. Therefore also, the entire proceedings have vitiated and liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶43

As per Respondent the loan account of the Applicant was classified as NPA on 09.07.2022 after which the answering Respondent issued demand notice on 18.07.2022 which was duly served to the Applicant. Further, the application u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Baran (Raj.) for getting possession of secured property with aid of police upon which order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Baran (Raj.) on 27.03.2023.

¶44

It is contended that complete proceeding has been done under the mandate of SARFAESI Act and no illegality has been committed by the answering Respondent. it is significant to mention herein that after continuous defaults done by the applicant, foreclosure statement was issued on his request whereby due amount against his home loan account was informed. Further, it is significant to mention herein that as on 15.10.2025, the amount of Rs. 30,11,787.51 (In Words Thirty Lacs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Seven Rupees and Fifty-One Paisa) is due on applicant.

SA no.485/2025

Heard the arguments.

Efforts to reconcile & settlement were under taken but the Respondent was not ready to go below 17.00 Lacs whereas the borrowers were not ready to go above Rs 11.00 Lac.

¶50

The amount mentioned in sale notice is Rs 18.00 Lac + expenses/ interest but exact amount is not mentioned.

¶51

Rs.3,00,000 were deposited on direction of the Tribunal & the borrowers are out of property possession since 2023. It is submitted that one of the daughters got paralyzed and wedding of another daughter was called off. The situation of borrowers is pathetic thus Respondent may give appropriate concession. The value of property is around Rs. 17.00 Lac and if the Respondent had to return Rs 3.00 Lac deposited then net amount available to them will be Rs. 14.00 Lac.

¶52

The Tribunal is of the opinion that Respondent may accept Rs 15.00 Lac as full and final payment to end the litigation and close the account as it will cover some of their expenses also.

¶53

Rs. 11.00 Lac DD has been handed over today and balance to be paid by the applicant 25th March 2026. The payment can be made earlier and upon payment the Respondent shall hand back the possession within one week and then in two weeks shall issue No Dues Certificate and hand bank original documents to the borrowers/mortgagers.

¶54

If the payment is not made by the applicant, the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed as per law.

¶55

In view of the above, this Securitization Application stands disposed of. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶56

In case of any exigency the concerned parties are at liberty to file Misc. Application.

¶57

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶58

Shahjad Uddin v. Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahjad Uddin v. Aadhar Housing Finance 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

Kailash Devi Jain versus Smfg Grihashakti India Home Finance Company

Rajasthan Gramin Bank versus Ramniwas

Axis Bank versus M/S Fashion India Prints

Hinduja Housing Finance Limited versus Mani Bhavanam Home Finance India Pvt. Ltd.

Journail Singh versus S K Finance Ltd.

Pinki Devi versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited