Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
INDIABULLS COMERCIAL CREDIT LIMITED vs MRS MAYA SHARMA on 1 October 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
**Misc. Appeal No.19/2023
Arising out of S.A. No.340/2022 (DRT, Jaipur)**
**Item No.31**
**Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited**
**V.**
**Ms. Maya Sharma & others**
**01.10.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain**
Present: Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Advocate for the appellant through VC
This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
**ORDER (ORAL)**
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by DRT, Jaipur in S.A. bearing no.340/2022 titled as **Mrs. Maya Sharma & another V. Indabulls Housing Finance Limited**. DRT, Jaipur vide the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 set aside the auction conducted by the appellant on 28.03.2022 and directed refund of the amount deposited by the auction purchaser. The perusal of the order dated 26.12.2022 reflects that the respondents 1 and 2 had sought relief of quashing and setting aside of the possession notice dated 28.05.2022 and the auction conducted in respect of the secured asset. DRT in the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 observed that the auction notice dated 18.02.2022 was issued and the subject property was put to auction on 28.03.2022 for at a reserve price of Rs.11 lacs whereas as per the valuation report the distress value was Rs.10,79,750/- and the market value was Rs.15,42,500/-. It was also observed that the appellant put the subject property to auction at distress value and completed the auction proceedings at Rs.11.10 lacs with a single bidder and, therefore, the auction is liable to be set aside on this ground.
2. Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Advocate for the appellant argued that the S.A. was barred by limitation as the auction notice was issued on 18.02.2022 and the possession was taken on 26.05.2022 and thereafter the S.A. came to be filed on 06.06.2022, i.e. beyond the period of 45 days. It is further argued that DRT has not considered the issue of limitation while passing the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 despite being raised by the appellant.
3. It is appearing that DRT, Jaipur has not considered the issue of limitation before passing the impugned order whereby the auction was set aside. DRT was required to consider the issue of limitation before passing any effective order like setting aside of the auction. The impugned order dated 26.12.2022 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. It is stated that the S.A. is still pending before DRT for consideration. Accordingly, DRT, Jaipur is directed to consider the validity of the auction stated to be conducted on 28.03.2022 in pursuance of the auction notice dated 18.02.2022 after considering the issue of limitation as raised by the appellant. The present appeal stands disposed of along with pending applications, if any. The appellant shall also be at liberty to raise all other relevant pleas and contentions during the trial of the S.A.
----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**
-pk\$