MS BOLT GYM AND SPA vs BANK OF INDIA on 9 March 2026

**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI**

**(ADDITIONAL CHARGE , DRAT-DELHI)**

Appeal Dy. No. 513/2026 Arising out of S.A. No.142/2024 (DRT-II, Chandigarh)

**M/s Bolt Gym and Spa & Others vs. Bank of India & Others**

**09/03/2026**

Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Ld. Counsel for appellants.

Mr. Vadlamani Seshagiri, Ld. Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2.

Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3.

This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

The Petitioner/Appellant has challenged the final order passed in S.A. No. 142/2024 on 11.02.2026 by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that initially petitioner/appellant filed the aforesaid SA challenging the demand notice and possession notice. Subsequent to issuance of sale notice, the petitioner filed an amendment application to amend the securitization application. By the said amendment application, the petitioner/appellant prayed to set aside the sale notice dated 15.09.2025 for the sale fixed on 27.10.2025, the sale held in pursuance to the sale notice and issuance of sale certificate on 04.11.2025 in favour of the respondent no.3. Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chandigarh, after contest, dismissed the securitization application. Therefore, this appeal is filed along with waiver application.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that the demand notice dated 25.05.2021 was issued to two persons, one Mr.

Sd/-

Abhyendra Kumar Gupta and Ms. Neena Gupta. They are the legal heirs of the borrower, deceased Sh. Ainesh Gupta, the proprietor of M/s Bolt Gym and Spa. This Abhyendra Kumar Gupta is also the guarantor for the loan. Though the notice shows that demand notice was issued to two persons, there is no proof that the demand notice was sent through post to Ms. Neena Gupta or that its service has been proved by the respondent bank. The possession notice dated 17.02.2026 was also not served through post, and publication of the possession notice in English newspaper and in the vernacular language, and its affixure is not proved by the bank by producing the relevant documents. The sale notice dated 15.09.2025 was issued only to Ms. Neena Gupta on 15.09.2025 claiming a sum of Rs.1,81,87,538.91 with interest. Before issuing this sale notice, the guarantor to the loan, Sh. Abhyendra Kumar Gupta had died on 26.11.2024.

Petitioner filed an application before the DRT seeking to bring on record the details of the legal representatives of deceased Sh. Ainesh Gupta, wherein the details of legal heirs are given, namely Smt. Neena Gupta w/o Sh. Abhyendra Kumar Gupta and Ms. Anu Gupta D/o Sh. Abhyendra Kumar Gupta. This application was allowed by the Ld. Presiding Officer and the Learned Counsel for the Bank also expressed no objection to bring the legal heirs on record. Despite of the fact that there is one more legal heir, namely Ms. Anu Gupta, the daughter of deceased Mr. Abhyendra Kumar Gupta, the bank has not chosen to issue sale notice to this Anu Gupta and issued only to Ms. Neena Gupta, therefore, the very sale proceeding on the basis of this sale notice is illegal.

It is further submitted that there is no registration of the mortgage under CERSAI. The property worth Rs.8-10 crores was grossly undervalued and the reserved price was fixed at Rs. 4,71,50,000/- and it was ultimately sold for Rs.6,16,50,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant further submitted that the bank Sd/- has not produced any valuation report in support of fixing the reserved price of the property. Service of sale notice to Ms. Neena Gupta is not proved by production of necessary documents.

When the matter was taken up before the Ld. Presiding Officer on 28.10.2025, the Ld. Counsel for the bank informed that 15% of the sale consideration was not paid by the auction purchaser. Petitioner produced a demand draft for the entire outstanding dues on the debt, however, the same was not considered. While filing this appeal, the petitioner/appellant deposited 25% of the outstanding as per the sale notice towards pre-deposit. In these circumstances, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant seeks reduction of pre-deposit from 50% to 25%. She further submitted that the bank has scheduled to take possession of the property today and seeks protection.

In reply to these submissions, Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank submitted that all the grounds now raised had already been raised before the DRT and before the Hon'ble High Court and that have been negatived. It is further submitted that the daughter of mortgagor and guarantor, Ms. Anu Gupta had already been impleaded as a party in SARFAESI proceeding on 04.04.2025. The possession notice and the sale notice were duly served and service was effected through all the three modes. With regard to the valuation report, Ld. Counsel for the bank submitted that he was served with the papers only yesterday, and therefore, he requires time to get instruction.

He further submitted that without considering the sale price, the amount due is around Rs.2 crores. The sale has been held and confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser, and the sale consideration has been paid within the time stipulated. Symbolic possession has already been taken, but physical possession is not taken because petitioner had threatened to commit suicide. Pre- deposit is mandatory, and therefore, the grounds pleaded for reduction of pre-deposit cannot be considered.

Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank further submitted that petitioner had undertaken earlier on 04.04.2025 that she will surrender the physical possession of the property if she is not able to pay the debt due.

Ld. Counsel for the auction purchaser submitted that he paid EMD of 10% prior to participation in the sale and within 24 hours of the sale he paid 15%. The balance 75% was paid on 11.11.2025. He is a *bonafide* purchaser, and therefore, this appeal cannot be entertained without pre-deposit of 30%.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

It is gathered from the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties that the sale was successful in the first sale attempt. The Tribunal finds from the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant that there are certain grounds taken with regard to non-service of possession notice and sale notice to Ms. Neena Gupta. Other ground is that one of the legal heir namely Ms. Anu Gupta, daughter of the guarantor Mr. Abhyendra Kumar Gupta, was not served with the sale notice and that bank had not filed any valuation report to justify the fixation of reserve price at Rs.4,71,50,000/-, when the property would fetch Rs.8-10 crores in the market. There is also no clarity supported by documents as to the date of payment of 15% of the sale consideration as to whether it was paid on date of sale or within 24 hours of the sale. However, these grounds have to be considered only at the time of hearing the appeal. *Prima-facie* this Tribunal finds that despite allowing the application for bringing the legal heirs on record, the bank did not chose to send sale notice to the other legal heir of the guarantor namely Ms. Anu Gupta. There are arguable points involved in this appeal. However, the pre-deposit is mandatory to entertain this appeal. Now, the sale is over Sd/- and a third-party interest has been created and Ld. Counsel for first respondent informs that as on 27.10.2025, an amount of Rs.1,91,75,000/- is outstanding against the Petitioners/appellants.

Considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties, this Tribunal is of the view that directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 30% of Rs.1,91,75,000/- would meet the requirement under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for entertain the appeal.

Admittedly, 30% of Rs.1,91,75,000/- comes to Rs.57,52,500/-. After deducting Rs.45,47,000/-, which has already been deposited by the petitioners/ appellants towards pre-deposit, the petitioners/ appellants shall deposit the balance amount of Rs.12,05,500/- within three weeks from today i.e. on or before 30.03.2026.

It is made clear that failure to deposit of the aforesaid amount, the appeal will be rejected. On making such deposit by the petitioners/appellants, Registrar, DRAT, Delhi is to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time, till further orders are passed.

List the case on 02.04.2026, for compliance of payments.

Since, the petitioners/appellants have already deposited Rs.45.47 lacs towards pre-deposit, the interim order already granted shall continue till the next date.

Sd/-

Chairperson DRAT, Chennai Additional Charge, DRAT, Delhi

-N/pam