Dismissed

Sanjeev Agarwal v. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT7 Jan 2026SA/569/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by the debtor to set aside notices and sale proceedings. Relying on the admitted knowledge of the applicant regarding NPA and sale, the Tribunal found statutory compliances were met and refused cancellation of the sale certificate as no fundamental procedural error was proven.

What did the court decide?

Applicant's Securitization Application for setting aside notices and sale proceedings was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed; all pending IA's disposed of.

Sanjeev Agarwal versus Indiabulls Housing Finance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

S.A. No.569 of 2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW

¶4

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶5

Se<,..uritization Application No.569 of 2022

¶6

Dated: 07.01.2026

¶7

Applicant Sanjeev Agarwal & Ors.

¶8

Versus

¶9

India Bulls Housing Finance & Ors.

¶10

Respondents

¶11

Ld. Counsel for the applicant: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate.

¶12

Ld. Counsel for the FI : Mr. Suneet K. Sharma, Advocate.

¶13

Ld. Counsel for the AP: Mr. Syed Mohd. Furquan, Advocate.

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The present Securitization Application has been filed by the applicant under section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement oP Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act) for relief to set aside demand notice dated 19.02.2020, possession notice dated 12.6.2020, order dated 19.4.2022 passed under Section 14 of the Act, sale dated 11.4.2022 and to quash entire SARFAESI proceeding.

¶16

This SA has been brought by the applicant on 11.8.2022. It is stated this application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act has been brought from the date of knowledge of the SARFAESI proceeding. It is stated that applicant along with one Mr. Rohit Agarwal availed credit facility of housing loan from the respondent-FI.

¶17

Further case being that on 29.6.2022, the applicant sent a e-mail for the settlement of loan account under OTS proposal. The mail was replied by the respondent-FI on

-L

S.A.No.569 of 2022

25.7.2022 and informed that demand notice dated 19.02.2020, possession notice dated 12.6.2020 has been issued and the property was sold on 11.4.2022- it is stated that for the first time, he came to know regardlng se(.',uritization proceeding initiated by the respondent-FI. It is further submitted that respondent-FI has affixed Possession notice issued under Rule 8(1) on 29.5.2022 and 29.7.2022. It is alleged that property has been sold on meager price of Rs.68.50 lac for recovery of only Rs.20 lac. It is alleged that respondent-FI was not having valid security interest.

¶23

Further case of the applicant being that he had sent letter dated 21.8.2021 for proposal of One Time Settlement, but it was not properly replied by the respondent-FI. It is stated that applicants were staying outside Lucknow for last three years and the secured premises was locked and care taker visited the place in second week of June, it was found by him that his flat is sealed by respondent-FI. It is stated in the e-mail sent by the applicant that in order to realize the loan account, during period of 2019 till end of 2022, the applicant tried several times to meet the officer of the respondent-FI, but, of no avail.

¶24

Ld. Counsel for the respondent-FI has filed detail written objection stating therein that all the statutory compliances were properly made and served upon the applicants and further that SA is itself hopelessly time barred. It is pointed out that as per the case of the applicant himself, he was approaching the respondent-FI since 2019, but any attempt to regularize the account or paying the due was not made. It is pointed out that the applicant was quite aware of the securitization proceeding initiated by the respondent-FI .

¶25

¶26

S.A.No.569 of 2022

¶27

In the alternate, it is submitted that SA has been brought by the applicant on 11.8.2022, hence, SA is time barred on admission of the applicant. Since, the applicant was having knowledge of the NPA and he was approaching the respondent-FI for regularizing of the account. It is further submitted that as per the admission of the applicant himself, he was not residing at the premises and for last three years without informing the respondent-FI and all the notices were served upon the applicant at the address provided by him i.e. address of the secured asset.

¶28

My attention has been drawn towards the annexure filed by the respondent-FI. It is submitted that demand notice dated 19.02.2020 was duly served upon the applicant and in proof thereof, demand notice, postal receipt1 publication in the newspaper and affixation at the secured assets has been shown to the Tribunal. Similarly, possession notice dated 12.6.2020 was duly served upon the applit.'ant1 in proof thereof, postal receipt, publication and affixation at the secured assets has been shown to the Tribunal. It is submitted that sale notice was also served1 in proof thereof, receipt, publication and affixation has been shown to the Tribunal. It is stated that after e_au(..,tion1 sale certificate was issued on 31.5.2022

¶29

1 have considered rival submissions

¶30

9' 1 find that as per admission of the applicant himself, he was having everY knowledge of the securitization proceeding, since, he was approaching for regularizing of the account after declaration of NPA and he wanted to submit OTS proposal which was never submitted by the applicant.

¶31

Applicant has further admitted that in the second week of June1 he was informed by his care taker that the secured

¶32

¶33

S.A.No.569 of 2022

¶34

assets has been sold by the respondent-FI, but, even then, applicant not brought the petition under Section 17(1) within 45 days of the said information.

¶35

11.1 am of view that plea taken by the applicant regarding no knowledge of the securitization proceeding is only a pretext and cannot be believed upon.

¶36

12.1 further find that all the statutory compliances have been made by the respondent-FI.

¶37

13.As far as valuation is concerned, the applicant has not brought any document in regard of valuation and to disbelieve the valuation made by the respondent-FI.

¶38

14.Needless to say that any relief to the applicant hinges around cancellation of the sale certificate.

¶39

The Hon’ble Apex Court decided a ratio in Bafna Contempt Case.

¶40

“The Hon’ble Apex Court has framed a question and laid down ratio, as to the circumstances, when a sale of property by auction or other means under SARFAESI Act may be set aside after its confirmation. Their Lordships have examined a series of judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has been said that purpose of an open auction is to get the most enumerative price and it is a duty of the Court to keep openness of the auction so that intending bidder would be free to participate and offer higher value. It is said that once the sale has been confirmed, it cannot be set aside unless fundamental procedural error occurred or sale certificate has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. After discussions of several other judgments their Lordship has propounded the ratio in para 218 of the judgment.”

¶41

“ Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already confirmed or concluded ought not to be set-aside or interfered with lightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated

\ \

S.A.No.569 of 2022

by inadequate pricing or underbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule which does not have any fundamental procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such proceeding. In such cases, courts in particular should be mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confirmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity.”

¶46

16.In view of above discussion that any of the grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding has neither been pleaded nor proved. I do not find any merit in the SA, accordingly, SA is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶47

17.All the pending IAs are disposed of.

¶48

Let the file be consigned to record room.

¶49

(Dictated2 \ \

¶50

(Pravas Kumat Singh) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow

¶51

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 07th Day of January, 2026.

¶52

\pA \

¶53

(Pravas Kuma\SiJgh) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow

¶54

(Veeresh)

¶55

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶56

Dateoforderor proceeding	Order withsignatureofcourt	Officeaction taken withdate
S.A.No.569/2022 07.01.2026	Judgment is signed and pronounced onseparate sheets. Separately attachedin05sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’swebsite
	(PravasKumar ;ingh) PresidingOfficer

Sanjeev Agarwal v. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Agarwal v. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

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

State Bank of India versus Mr.Khalil

M/S Jagannath Traders versus Union Bank of India

Bank of India versus M/S Mas Hospitiality

Soniya versus Uco Bank

Bank of India versus M/s Mk Traders

Indus Tower Limited versus Punjab National Bank