Allowed

Vipul Sudhakar Dhekle v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

DRT14 Jan 2026SA/91/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitisation Application under the SARFAESI Act, the Applicant challenged an order of possession passed by the District Magistrate favoring Respondent No.1. The Tribunal found the Applicant to be a bonafide purchaser without notice of the prior mortgage and allowed the Application, quashing the District Magistrate's order and the possession notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03.01.2023 by the District Magistrate and the possession notice dated 09.03.2023 issued by the Tahsildar were quashed and set aside.

Vipul Sudhakar Dhekle versus Asset Reconstruction Company… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on : 03.04.2023 Registered on : 07.03.2024 Decided on : 14.01.2026 Duration : Y M D 02-09-11

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD

¶3

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.91 OF 2024

¶4

Vipul s/o Sudhakar Dhekle, Age : 34 years, Occu. Business, R/o Shop No.2, Prateek Plaza, Khinvasara Park, Garkheda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar – 431 001 .. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Through Authorised Officer, R/o Ruby, 10^th Floor, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028, Having its one of the Branches at Aurangabad At A-3, Suyash Complex, Kalda Corner, Shreya Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar CIN No.U65999MH200PLC134884

¶7

Mr. Devendra Rameshlal Gugale (Borrower), Age : Major, Occu. Business, R/o Mahavir Milk Agencies, Shop No.2, Prateek Plaza Complex, CTS No.15735/2/1, Plot No.1, Khinvasara Park, Ulkanagari, Garkheda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar – 431 005

¶8

Ramesh Khivraj Gugale (Co-Borrower), Age : Major, Occu. Business, R/o Mahavir Milk Agencies, Shop No.2, Prateek Plaza Complex, CTS No.15735/2/1,

¶9

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 1 of 15

¶10

Plot No.1, Khinvasara Park, Ulkanagari, Garkheda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar – 431 005

¶11

2^nd Address :

¶12

Ramesh Khivraj Gugale, C/o P.B. Lahane, Plot No.51, Garkheda Paarisar, Khinvasara Park West, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

¶13

Mr. Manoj s/o Shankarrao Ghatge, Age : Major, Occu. Business, R/o Shop No.2, Prateek Plaza Complex, CTS No.15735/2/1, Plot No.1, Khinvasara Park, Ulkanagari, Garkheda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar – 431 005

¶14

2^nd Address:

¶15

R/o Banewadi, Near Railway Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

¶16

Sandeep s/o Mukundrao Saraf, Age : Major, Occu. Business, R/o Shop No.2, Prateek Plaza Complex, CTS No.15735/2/1, Plot No.1, Khinvasara Park, Ulkanagari, Garkheda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar – 431 005

¶17

2^nd Address:

¶18

Sandeep s/o Mukundrao Saraf, Plot No.37, CTS No.15735/3/13, Khinvasara Park, Garkheda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

¶19

HDFC BANK LTD., Through Authorised Officer, Address : 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Plot No.14,

¶20

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 2 of 15

¶21

Seven Hills to Gajanan Maharaj Mandir Road, Opposite CADA Office, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar – 431 001 IFSC Code : HDFC0001946 …. Respondents

¶22

APPEARANCE :

¶23

Applicant : Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Advocate

¶24

Respondents : Mr. Atul Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.1 None for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 Mr. H.S. Adwant, Advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Adwant, Advocate for Respondent No.6

¶25

CORAM: DR. J.R. CHAUHAN, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

(Pronounced on : 14.01.2026)

¶28

The applicant has filed this Securitisation Application (S.A.) under

¶29

Section 17 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”) against the respondents, with the averments that the applicant is running a business of Repair and Service of Home Appliances by name and style “AIR TECHNICS” since 2015. The applicant has purchased Shop No.2, Prateek Plaza Complex, CTS No.15735/2/1, Plot No.1, Khinvasara Park, Ulkanagari, Garkheda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar from present respondent No.5 for valuable consideration vide sale-deed

¶30

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 3 of 15

¶31

No.6000/2020 dated 18.11.2020. Before purchase of the property, the applicant had verified the title from advocate and also gave one paper publication in well-known newspaper `Divya Marathi’, circulated in Aurangabad on 28.10.2020.

¶32

It is stated in the S.A. that the applicant had availed loan facility of Rs.17,00,000/- from respondent No.6 – HDFC Bank Ltd. Respondent No.6 also verified the title of the property through legal advisor and found the property free from all encumbrances and considering the financial capacity of the applicant, sanctioned loan of Rs.17,00,000/- to the present applicant. Respondent No.6 created its charge over the property. The applicant is regular in repayment of loan instalments from the date of disbursement to him and enjoyed the property since the date of purchase and he is owner in possession over the said property.

¶33

It is further averred in the application that on 01.03.2023, a person from the office of Tahasildar, Aurangabad, affixed order of the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, whereby the applicant came to know that he is neither borrower nor guarantor in the loan facility availed from any other financial institution except the HDFC Bank. The impugned order of the learned District Magistrate was having the names of respondent Nos.2 and 3, who were unknown to the present applicant, but the property description was

¶34

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 4 of 15

¶35

the same, which is in the name of ownership of the present applicant. Respondent No.1 has obtained the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act from the learned District Magistrate by playing fraud. Further, on 23.03.2023, some person from respondent No.1 had been to the shop and affixed notice on the outer wall of the shop, stating therein that on 06.04.2023, the Tahsildar is going to handover the possession of the property to respondent No.1 with the help of police. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Tahsildar as well as learned District Magistrate, Aurangabad and obtained certified copies of the application and impugned order dated 01.03.2023. The applicant came to know from the person present at the registered office of respondent No.1 that the shop was mortgaged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 with “Moneyline Credit Ltd”, a Financial Company, which was merged in IIFL (India Infoline Finance Ltd.) in the year 2011.

¶36

The applicant further submitted that thereafter, he approached to his vendor – respondent No. 5 – Sandeep Mukundrao Saraf and enquired about the earlier mortgages and transfers of the property. Respondent No.5 took the applicant to respondent No.4, who was the vendor of respondent Nos.5. Respondent No.4 provided copy of the sale-deed bearing No.4271/2017 dated 08.06.2017, showing that the property was sold without any encumbrance or third party interest. The applicant is neither borrower nor

¶37

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 5 of 15

¶38

guarantor of IIFL or Moneyline Finance Ltd. Respondent No.1 is not having any right or claim over the suit property. The charge of the IIFL or Moneyline Finance Company is not appearing on the Record of Rights at any point of time and hence, respondent No.4 purchased the property from respondent Nos.2 and 3. In this manner, the present applicant is bonafide purchaser of the property and the action of respondent No.1 under the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the shop as per impugned order dated 03.01.2023, is illegal, null and void. Therefore, it is prayed by the applicant that the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 as well as notice of the Additional Tahsildar dared 09.03.2023 are liable to be quashed and set aside and the respondents be restrained from taking possession of the applicant’s shop.

¶39

The respondent No.1 filed say/reply to the interim relief application as Exhibit-A and learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that this reply be treated to have been filed as reply to S.A. on behalf of respondent No.1 as reflected in the order dated 07.03.2024. It was alleged by respondent No.1 in the said reply that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had availed loan facility in the year 2008. The said housing loan of Rs.5,50,000/- was sanctioned on 21.08.2008 and accordingly, the original sale-deed bearing day-book No.6412 dated 30.09.2008 was deposited with the Financial Institution.

¶40

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 6 of 15

¶41

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were irregular in payment of the EMIs and committed default in repayment of the said loan amount and the said loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 29.05.2015. The India Infoline Finance Limited has, by way of Deed of Assignment, transferred various NPA accounts in favour of respondent No.1, including loan account of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.1 thereafter issued demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act in respect of loan facility of Rs.9,39,589/- and this demand notice was also published in newspaper on 25.10.2018, but the respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to pay the loan amount as demanded and they have not even raised any objection. It is further stated in the reply that the applicant has no right to challenge the procedure initiated by the answering respondent as they have purchased the property which was already mortgaged to the answering respondent in the year 2008, thereby depositing the original title-deed with the Financial Institution. The answering respondent filed an application before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad for obtaining Physical Possession Order and the learned District Magistrate passed an order on 03.01.2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and in view of this order, the Tahsildar issued possession notice on 09.03.2023 for taking physical possession of the secured assets on 06.04.2023. According to the answering respondent, the applicant,

¶42

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 7 of 15

¶43

without following the legal procedure, has purchased the mortgaged property and now the applicant cannot claim any right in the said property, which was already mortgaged in favour of respondent No.1 in the year 2008. Respondent No.1 denied all other allegations made in the Securitisation Application and dismissal of the same with cost was prayed for.

¶44

None has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶45

Respondent No.6 – HDFC Bank filed their say/reply dated 06.04.2023 at Exhibit-B, alleging therein that respondent No.1 has played fraud upon the District Magistrate, Aurangabad as well as with this Tribunal. Respondent No.1 – assignee of IIFL filed Securitisation Application No.72 of 2019 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad to enforce its purported security interest and taking physical possession of the subject property, purportedly owned and possessed by Devendra Rameshlal Gugale. On 28.06.2010, a registered Sale-Deed bearing No.5445/2010 was executed by Devendra Rameshlal Gugale in favour of Manoj Shankarrao Ghatge, whereby the subject property was sold to Manoj Shankarrao Ghatge for value consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-, thereby transferring the right, title, interest, ownership and possession thereof to the purchaser. The applicant, after publishing a public notice in Daily `Divya Marathi’ dated 28.10.2020, purchased the suit property vide registered Sale-

¶46

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 8 of 15

¶47

Deed dated 18.11.2020 for value consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 concealed material facts and withheld vital documents in order to secure the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad. Respondent No.1 represented before the District Magistrate that the subject property was purportedly mortgaged by Devendra Rameshlal Gugale with respondent No.1, by way of Mortgage-Deed dated 01.10.2018, when, in fact, the subject property was transferred by Devendra Rameshlal Gugale by way of registered Sale-Deed dated 28.06.2010 in the name of a third party. Hence, the purported mortgage, created by Devendra Rameshlal Gugale in favour of respondent No.1, is illegal, void and unenforceable as he was not then having the right, title and interest in the subject property. Respondent No.1 has played sharp practices with a view to gain wider advantage and is guilty of fraud upon the District Magistrate, Aurangabad as well as the applicant and respondent No.6. The possession notice dated 09.03.2023, issued by the Upper Tahsildar, Aurangabad to the Naib Tahsildar, Aurangabad and Mandal Adhikari, Aurangabad is in gross violation of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, which amounts to sub-delegation of powers without there being express authority therefor. The applicant is lawful owner in possession of the subject property by virtue of registered Sale-Deed dated 18.11.2020, bearing No.6000/2020

¶48

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 9 of 15

¶49

and the applicant has raised loan from the answering respondent and created security interest in the subject property by executing a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 23.12.2020. Accordingly, the charge created on the subject property has also been got registered by the answering respondent with the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) on 09.08.2021. Respondent No. 6 is a secured creditor. It is prayed by respondent No.6 that the present S.A. of the applicant may be allowed with exemplary costs.

¶50

The applicant has produced the following documents as per list of documents (Exhibit-4) as Annexure-A-1 to Annexure-A-5:

¶51

Sr. No.	Description of document	Annexure
1	Copy of sale-deed No.6000/2020 dated 18.11.2020	A-1
2	Copy of the Paper Publication dated 28.10.2020	A-2
3	Copy of the sanction letter of HDFC Bank dated 30.11.2020	A-3
4	Copy of the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed Securitization Application No.72/2019 by the Ld. DistrictMagistrate,Aurangabad	A-4
5	Copy of the Notice bearing No.2023/T.No.Sankirna/ SARFAESI35/KV171dated 09.03.2023	A-5

¶52

Respondent No.1 has also produced documents at Exhibit-5 vide Diary

¶53

No.3075 of 2024.

¶54

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 10 of 15

¶55

10. Respondent No.6 has produced following documents as per list of

¶56

documents (Exhibit-C) in Diary No.1003/2023:

¶57

Sr. No.	Description of document	Annexure
1	Copy of registered sale-deed dated 30.09.2008 bearing No.6412/2008	I
2	Copy of the registered sale-deed dated 28.06.2010 bearing No.5445/2010	II
3	Copy of the Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 23.12.2020	III
4	Copy of the CERSAI report	IV

¶58

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record thoroughly and carefully, including written submissions placed on record by the applicant. I now proceed to record my findings in this matter as follows:

¶59

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to record the sequence of the sale transactions took place in this case. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – borrowers of respondent No.1 sold away the suit property to respondent No.4 vide sale-deed dated 28.06.2010 bearing No.5445/2010 as per Annexure-II in the list of documents (Exhibit-C) produced by respondent No.6. Respondent No.4 further sold away the suit property in favour of respondent No.5 vide sale-deed No.4271 dated 08.06.2017 as reflected at page 44 of the paperbook under list of documents (Exhibit-4). Respondent No.5 further sold

¶60

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 11 of 15

¶61

away the suit property in favour of the applicant as per sale-deed No.6000/2020 dated 18.11.2020, produced on record as Annexure-A-1 in the list of documents (Exh-4) of the S.A.

¶62

I find from the record that the applicant, before purchasing the suit property, made publication in the newspaper (Annexure-A-2 of Exhibit-4) on 28.10.2020, when no objection was raised by anyone. Thereafter, the applicant purchased the suit property from respondent No.5. Respondent No.1 – assignee of the original lender has not submitted any reply to the effect that it was within the knowledge of the present applicant that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already mortgaged the suit property to the original lender assignor of respondent No.1. If the applicant would have purchased the suit property from respondent Nos.2 and 3 / borrowers of respondent No.1, then the position might have been different. But in the present case, firstly the suit property was sold by both the borrowers to respondent No.4, thereafter, respondent No.4 sold it away to respondent No.5 and he further sold away the same to the applicant. Therefore, there is no question of having any knowledge of the applicant that the suit property was already mortgaged to the assignor of respondent No.1. Thus, the applicant is bonafide purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration without notice.

¶63

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 12 of 15

¶64

The present applicant raised the loan from respondent No.6 – HDFC Bank Ltd by mortgaging the suit property purchased vide sale-deed No.6000/2020 dated 18.11.2020 (Annexure-A-1) and respondent No.6 sanctioned the loan of Rs.17,00,000/- as per the letter dated 30.11.2020 (Annexure-A-3) of Exhibit-4. Respondent No. 6 has also got its charge registered with CERSAI as per the document (Annexure-IV) in the list of documents (Exhibit-C) submitted by respondent No.6.

¶65

I further find that no document has been produced by respondent No.1 to show that the charge of the applicant over the suit property was registered with CERSAI in its name or in the name of its assignor and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the charge over the suit property was existing at the time of purchase of the suit property by the applicant vide sale-deed dated 18.11.2020. Hence, when valid title of the applicant over the suit property has been established vide sale-deed dated 18.11.2020 (Annexure-A-1 of Exh4), then initiation of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against the suit property by respondent No.1 by moving an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate and issuance of demand notice are apparently unsustainable. In view of the fact that the District Magistrate has passed the order dated 03.01.2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Tahsildar issued possession notice dated 09.03.2023 for

¶66

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 13 of 15

¶67

taking possession of the secured assets on 06.04.2023 and these proceedings have been challenged by the present applicant by filing present S.A. before this Tribunal. Thus, the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned District Magistrate and the possession notice dated 09.03.2023 issued by the Tahsildar are apparently illegal and invalid and not sustainable in the eye of law. Both these orders are liable to be set aside and the present S.A. deserves to be allowed.

¶68

16 In the result, considering the above discussion and findings, I pass the following order:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(A) Securitisation Application No.91 of 2024, filed by the applicant is hereby allowed.

¶71

(B) All the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by respondent No.1 pertaining to the suit property i.e. impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Aurangabad and the possession notice dated 09.03.2023 issued by the Tahsildar, Aurangabad, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶72

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 14 of 15

¶73

(C) In view of disposal of S.A. No.91 of 2024 as allowed, interlocutory applications, pending if any, stand disposed of accordingly in terms of the present judgment.

¶74

(D) File be consigned to the Record Room.

¶75

(E) Copy of this judgment and order be uploaded on the website.

¶76

(Dr. J.R. Chauhan), PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶77

Aurangabad

¶78

Date : 14.01.2026

¶79

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.91/2024] Page 15 of 15

Vipul Sudhakar Dhekle v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipul Sudhakar Dhekle v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

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

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus M/s Dnyanai Agro Processing Centre

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Gangadhar S/o Yohan Jadhav

Icici Bank Limited versus Ramesh Sampat Bhalerao

Bank of India versus Mr. Vijay Vithoba Parihar

Hdfc Bank versus Laxman Rambhaji Gavali

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Ajay Shivaji Jadhav