PIRAMAL FINANCE LIMITED vs GANPAT LAL BHATI on 9 October 2026

1. The respondents filed S.A. bearing no.13/2026 titled as **Ganpati Lal Bhati and another V. Piramal Finance Limited** which was stated to be pending before DRT-Jaipur. DRT-Jaipur vide impugned order dated 09.09.2026 with the consent of the parties preferred to quash the securitization proceedings with the liberty that was given to the appellant to modify the CERSAI charge. It was also directed that the physical possession of the secured asset shall be handed back within one week from today. The impugned order dated 09.09.2026 is reproduced as under:

1. In this matter, counsel for the applicant submits that notice under Section 13(2) is not in consonance with the CERSAI charge, therefore, no security interest as on date exist for the property which are being mentioned in notice under Section 13(2).

2. Counsel for the respondent FI submits that there are some errors regarding the charge in CERSAI.

3. With the consent of both the parties, these securitization proceedings are quashed. Respondent will be at liberty to modify the CERSAI charge. It is directed that physical possession shall be handed back within 1 week from today.

4. Accordingly, SA stands disposed of, all pending IAs also stands disposed of, if any. Respondent not to debit the expenses of these **proceedings from the account of applicant. 5. File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.**

2. Sh. Mukul Bhimani, Advocate referred the e-mail dated 21.09.2026 stated to have been written by the counsel for the appellant to the appellant wherein stated that he has never given consent for the disposal of S.A. bearing no.13/2026. However, there is no dispute that there was some discrepancy in the CERSAI charge.

3. Sh. Mukul Bhimani, Advocate for the appellant referred the judgment dated 04.03.2021 passed by DRAT-Allahabad in Appeal filed vide diary no.247/2019 and in particular para-15 which is reproduced as under:

**15. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the issue of 16. registration with CERSAI was decided in favour of the Bank, but the S.A.-applicant has not challenged the same by filing cross appeal, so it has attained finality. However, the argument advanced in this behalf is not tenable. Although it is true that the loan was sanctioned on 26.03.2012 and the mortgage was registered with CERSAI on 24.06.2015, but there is no impediment in the SARFAESI Act that the Bank cannot proceed under the SARFAESI Act without registration with CERSAI. Further, the registration is being made in order to protect the rights of the Bank as a proof of mortgage. Thus, in no way it causes any prejudice to the borrower-mortgagor, if not registered in time. As such the Tribunal below has rightly decided this issue against the S.A.-applicant.**

4. Sh. Mukul Bhimani, Advocate also cited judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in case **M/s L & T Housing Finance Limited V M/s Trishul Developers and another**, Civil Appeal NO(s).3413/2020 having particular referred the para-21 and stated that the borrower cannot be given advantage of technical mistakes. Admittedly there was some defect in the CERSAI charge and which was ordered to be modified by the appellant. The judgment passed by the DRAT-Allahabad as cited hereinabove does not provide much help to the appellant as in said case the subject property was not registered with the CERSAI but in the present case, the subject property was registered with the CERSAI with some discrepancy.

5. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. Hence appeal is dismissed. However, appellant shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the respondents in accordance with law.

6. On the request of the counsel for the appellant, the appellant is given two weeks' time from today to handover possession back to the respondent in terms of para-3 of the impugned order dated 09.09.2026.

Sd ----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**

-v\$