CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs ANUSHIKHA BHATIA AND OTHER on 24 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 05.06.2017 through Mr. Vinod Kumar Chuahan, Branch Manager of the applicant under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,64,435/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @15.20olo p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant nos.1 & 2, the applicant bank sanctioned a Term Loan Facility of Rs.17,00,000/- under Cent Mortgage Scheme for the pglqg- of their of business, tA.

TANOlt8922023 2 vide sanction letter dated 03.03.2012.The defendant nos.1 & 2 executed all necessary loaning documents on 03.03.2012. In consideration of the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants created equitable moftgage the immovable property built up entire Second Floor without terrace roof rights out of poftion of freehold property bearing Mpl. No. 80/a (old No WZ 94) along with proportionate undivided impartible owner ship right of the underneath land measuring 75 sq yards with super structure built on free hold Plot No.94, situated at Sant Nagar, New Delhi. It is submitted that the applicant Bank obtained the order dated 18.5.2016 from Ld. CMM Delhi for taking physical possession of the mortgaged propefi. When bank official along with visited the mortgaged property on 20.6.2016 to obtain physical possession, it was found that property had already been locked by Corporation bank. Therefore, possession Notice was pasted on the property and locks were also put on the doors of the property by Receiver in compliance with order dated 18.5.2016 obtained from Ld. CMM. It is submitted that thereafter applicant bank took up the matter with defendant no 3 but defendant no 3 did not respond to applicant bank and it has come to knowledge of the applicant that defendant no 3 has taken steps under Securitization Act and is in the process of selling the subject mortgaged property which is validly and legally charged to applicant bank. It is submitted by applicant bank that applicant bank is holding original Tltle deeds of the property and is having mottgage over the subject property by way offirst charge and defendant no 2 has no overriding right or interest over the subject property mortgaged to applicant bank and applicant bank has the prior charge over the said property as the original

9. }.

TANOlt892/2023 3 and genuine title deeds were deposited by defendant no 1 with it by way of equitable mortgage for securing the credit facilities granted to defendants.

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants. Hence, the account was classified as NPA dated 28.02.2015. The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 291L012015 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A/I.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, the defendants put appearance through counsel. The defendant nos.1 & 2 failed to file written statement. Thereafter, the defendant nos.1 & 2 failed to put appearance in the matter. Accordingly, the defendant nos.1 & 2 were proceeded against exaprte on 27.11.2078. The defendant no.3 has Rled written statement and evidence.

5. In their written statement the defendant no.3 has denied the facts mentioned in the OA. It is submifted that the defendant no. 3 bank had advanced/ granted the CC Limit to the tune of Rs.18 Lakhs on 22.06.2012 to M/s Sai Telecom, a firm into the business of Tele communication devices, acting through its proprietor Ms. Anushikha Mehta Wo Sh. Parveen Bhatia. The said facility was advanced by the defendant no.3 on the mortgage of the propertllul$er reference i.e. Entire e).

TANOn892l2023 4 second floor without roof rights of property bearing Mpl No. WZ80104 (Old No. WZ-94) measuring about 75 sq yards out of plot no. 94, situated at Sant Nagar, New Delhi. It is further submitted that for availing the said CC Limit facility, Ms. Anushikha Mehta Wo Sh. Parueen Bhatia had mortgaged the above said entire property Entire second floor without roof rights of propefi bearing Mpl No. V'lZ 80104 (Old No. WZ-94) measuring about 75 sq yards out of plot no. 94, situated at Sant Nagar, New Delhi, with the defendant no. 3 bank by creating equitable mortgage on22.06.2012. At the time of advancing the cash Credit Facility to M/s Sai Telecom acting through its proprietor Ms. Anushikha Mehta Wo Sh. Parueen Bhatia, one Mr. Harish Kapil had offered his guarantee and stood as guarantor for the facility being enjoyed by M/s SaiTelecom. It is submitted that the CC Account of M/s SaiTelecom acting through its proprietor Ms. Anushikha Mehta Wo Sh. Parveen Bhatia was declared NPA by the defendant no. 3 on 02.04.2013. The defendant no. 3 was forced to recall the entire outstanding amount from its borrower i.e. M/S Sai Telecom acting through its proprietor Ms. Anushikha Mehta Wo Sh. Parveen, vide its demand notice dated 08.07.2013, sent on 09.07.20L3 and delivered on 10.07.20L3, under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002. Vide the said notice, the defendant bank had demanded a sum of Rs. 18,62,5791- as on 08.07.2013 with fufther interest in the account of defendant no.1, within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice failing which the defendant bank will be constrained to initiate measures under section 13 (a) of the SARFAESI Act against the assets charged with the defendalt bank. It is fufther submitted cI , TANOlt892l2023 5 that M/s Sai Telecom acting through its proprietor Ms. Anushikha Mehta Wo Sh. Parueen Bhatia, aggrieved with the action of the defendant bank have filled SA vide Diary No.189 dated 15.04.2014 before Hon'ble DRT-III, against the defendant bank for restraining the defendant bank from taking the physical possession of the Entire Second Floor without roof rights of Property bearing Mpl. No. WZ 80104, (OLD no. WZ-

94) measuring about 75 sq. yds., out of plot No.94, Situated at Sant Nagar, New Delhi, i.e. the mortgaged propefi. On 17.04.2014 Hon'ble DRT-III was pleased enough to grant stay in favour of the M/s Sai Telecom acting through its proprietor Ms. Anushikha Mehta Wo Sh. Parveen Bhatia, herein and against the defendant ban( whereby restraining the defendant bank from taking the physical possession of the above said property subject to the deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of 3 (three) months from L7.04.2014 and out of which Rs.1,00,000/- was to be deposited on 18.04.2014. It is submitted that also vide order dated L7.04.20L4 Hon'ble DRT-III directed the applicant bank to considered the request of the defendants i.e. defendant nos.1 & 2 thereafter. It is submitted that M/s Sai Telecom acting through its proprietor Ms. Anushikha Mehta Wo Sh. Parveen Bhatia had deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the applicant bank as directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal but failed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within 3 (three) months as directed. The defendant bank filed its detailed reply to the said SA of the Ms. Anushikha Mehta Wo Sh. Parveen and the said SA was dismissed for non- prosecution on 26.03.2015. The defendant bank on 15.06.2015 had filed the OA for recovery of Rs.18,93,132l-, before !fo!:qle DRT-I, New Delhi as the g"\ .

TA NO/I892/2023 6 loaning branch of the defendant bank i.e. Rajendra Place falls within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble DRT-I. It is submitted that vide its judgment dated 29.12.20t6, The Hon'ble DRT I, New Delhi had decided the said OA No. 198/2015 titled as Corporation Bank VS M/s Sai Telecom & Ors. in favor of the defendant bank herein and Recovery Certificate was issued as per the said orders of the Hon'ble DRT-I, New Delhi. It is submitted that RC No.26lL7, as initiated in the OA No. 198/2015 is pending adjudication before Recovery Officer I, of DRT-I. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is abundantly clear that the applicant bank does not have any legal/appropriate lien or charge against any portion of the property in question. It is submitted that the documents on the basis of which the applicant bank has claimed its charge over the said property and on the basis of which the applicant bank has filed the present OA are forged and fabricated and the present OA, as filed by the applicant bank against the defendant no. 3 is liable to be rejected at the threshold. It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may dismiss the present O.A.

6. The applicant bank and defendant nos.3 have filed their respective evidence.

7. Heard the Ld. Counsel of applicant bank and Ld. Counsel of defendant no.3 and perused the record. L The main contention of the Ld. counsel of the defendant no.3 is that the subject propefty bearing no. MPL no.WZ-8012004 (Old no. WZ-94) measuring about 75 sq.yds. out of plot no. 94 situated at Sant Nagar, New Delhi has been mortgaged with the defendant no.3 by M/s SaiTelecom through its proprietor Ms. Anushka Mehta and Harish Kapoolexecuted guarantee in favour €\

TANOlt892/2023 7 of the defendant no.3. It is submitted that the defendant no.3 has initiated SARFAESI action against the said property as the borrower has failed to maintain the financial discipline. It is further submitted that the defendant no.3 has taken the possession of the property in pursuance of the SARFAESI action. It is further submitted that the borrower has filed the SA no. 189120L4 in which the borrower was given time to deposit the money. But the borrower has failed to comply the order of the Honble Tribunal and the SA was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26.03.2015. It is further submitted that the defendant no.3 has filed OA no.198/2015 Corporation Bank Vs. M/s SaiTelecom and Ors and the same has been allowed bythe Hontle DRT- I, New Delhi. The RC no. 2612017 has been issued and the same is pending adjudication before Ld. Recovery Officer-I of DRT-I, Delhi. It is therefore, submitted that the OA cannot be decreed in respect of the subject property as the property has already been mortgaged with the defendant no.3. The applicant bank in para no.5.16 of the OA has admitted that the defendant no.3 has taken SARFAESI action in respect of the subject property and has taken the possession of the property. Therefore, it is clear that the subject property has been mortgaged with two banks one with the applicant bank and secondly with the defendant no.3. Both the banks have initiated SARFEASI action in respect of the subject property. The OA filed by the defendant no.3 has already been allowed and RC no.26120L7 is pending adjudication. Therefore, the second RC in respect of the same property cannot be issued as it will be contrary to the RC no.26120t7. Both the secured creditors have initiated SARFAESI action in respect of the subject property. Therefore, it will ttg just and proper to direct sx

TANOn892l2023 8 the parties to take resource of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act for disposal of their rival claims before the Ld. Arbitrator. The Honble Supreme Court in Appeal no.7ll0l2025 in matter of Bank of India Vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills M. Ltd. and Ors. has also held that if there is any dispute regarding the mortgage of the property between two financial institutions, the same has to be referred to the Arbitrator under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. In the present matter, both the secured creditors have initiated action under the SARFAESI Act and the defendant no.3 has taken possession of the property and the applicant is also claiming to have put his lock on the property and therefore, it will be convenient to direct the parties to approached the Ld. Arbitrator under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. Though there is no provision of Arbitration under Section 19 of the RDB Act or any of the provision of the RDB Act, but when one RC is issued, the other RC cannot be issued unless the first RC is satisfied. If two contradictory RCs are issued, one in favour of the applicant bank and the other in favour of the defendant no.3, the same cannot be executed. In such circumstances, the OA of the applicant may be allowed against defendant no.1 & 2 but the applicant bank cannot be permitted to recover the dues from the sale of the moftgage propefi.

9. From perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that, the applicant bank has proved his case against the defendants and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed by the applicant bank and the O.A of the applicant bank is liable to be allowed. In the light of the above discussions, the present O.A|[.A. deserves to bg,4!!gwed. 6r\'

TANO1t892/2023

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.24,64,435/- along with cost, expenses and interest @14.25o/o from the date of filing of this O.A which has become T.A. till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 and 2.

3) In respect of the mortgaged property the applicant may approach the Ld. Arbitrator under Section 11 of the SARFAESI ACt.

4) Recovery Certificate be issued fotthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

5) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

6) Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion 25.Lt.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 9 CT

TANOn892l2023 l0 File be consigned to records. Date:24.09.2026 9"\ (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Date:24.09.2026 ().. (SUSHIL Kt r rrHx RASiO'Gi) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi