REHANA BABY vs ASSETS CARE AND RECONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE LTD on 6 October 2026

1. The appellants filed S.A. bearing No. 288/2026 titled as **Rehana Baby & another v. Assets Care Reconstruction Enterprises Limited & others** which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi.

2. The appellants filed an application I.A. bearing No.1963/2026 for restraining the respondent no.1 / Court Receiver for taking physical possession of the subject property being three-storied property measuring 196.4 sq. yds. in property bearing No. 2725-2729, Ward no. XIV, plot no.4 (East), situated at Sadar Thana Road, Delhi-110006 and also to review / recall / modification of the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by this Tribunal. The DRT-I, Delhi vide impugned order dated 29.09.2026 has declined to grant interim relief. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 29.09.2026 is reproduced as under:

7. In the light above facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the conduct of the applicant, this Tribunal is of the view that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the applicant and balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the applicant for granting interim relief. Rather, the respondent bank of course would suffer irreparable loss in case the interim relief is being granted in favour of the S. applicant as the respondent bank has to recover amount of more than Rs.3.50 crores in the present account. Accordingly, the prayer of the applicant for restraining the respondent bank/ court receiver from taking physical possession of the property in question, **which is fixed for 01.10.2026, stands rejected. All other issues shall be decided after filing reply, rejoinder and evidences by the parties.**

3. It is reflecting that vide order dated 17.08.2026 the appellants were directed to deposit Rs.50 lacs on the date of order i.e. 17.08.2026 and another amount of Rs.50 lacs within one week from 17.08.2026. It was further directed that if the appellants failed to deposit the said amount, the respondent no.1 shall be at liberty to proceed further under the SARFAESI Act in accordance with law. Thereafter, I.A. bearing No. 1963/2026 was filed as detailed herein above.

4. Sh. Sanjiv Kakra, Senior Advocate for the appellants after referring the para no.2 of the impugned order dated 29.09.2026 stated that as per Section 26 (B) of the SARFAESI Act the subject property was registered with CERSAI on 10.02.2026 but was modified on 27.08.2026 and any action taken by the respondent no.1 under SARFAESI Act before 27.08.2026 was not valid in accordance with law. He further stated that the appellants have deposited Rs.50 lacs in terms of order dated 17.08.2026 but could not deposit further amount of Rs.50 lacs within one week from 17.08.2026. However, he stated that the appellants may deposit further amount of Rs.50 lacs within four weeks from today. In these circumstances, Sh. Sanjiv Kakra, Senior Advocate for the appellants prayed that the respondent no.1 be restrained from taking physical possession of the subject property. Sh. Sanjiv Kakra, Senior Advocate further stated that the appellants filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P. (C) No.14628/2026 whereby, High Court of Delhi vide order dated 01.10.2026 has protected the subject property till 06.10.2026.

5. Sh. Arvind Jadon, Counsel for respondent no.1 defended the impugned order dated 29.09.2026 and stated that all the SARFAESI action taken by the respondent no.1 strictly in accordance with law and further the appellants did not deposit the further amount of Rs.50 lacs in terms of order dated 17.08.2026 as such the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. It is reflecting that the appellants vide order dated 17.08.2026 were directed to deposit Rs.50 lacs on 17.08.2026 which has been actually deposited by the appellants. However, the appellants in terms of further direction to deposit another amount of Rs.50 lacs within one week from 17.08.2026 could not comply with due to financial hardship as stated by Sh. Sanjit Kakra, Senior Advocate the appellants shall deposit further amount of Rs.50 lacs within four weeks from today. However, Counsel for respondent no.1 stated that the appellants should not be granted more than 15 days to make further amount of Rs.50 lacs.

7. In view of the rival contentions of both the parties and arguments advance on their behalf, the preset appeal is disposed of with the direction to the appellants to deposit further amount of Rs.50 lacs in terms of order dated 17.08.2026 within four weeks from today and till than the respondent no.1 is directed to maintain *status quo* regarding the possession of the subject property. However, it is made clear that if the appellants failed to deposit Rs.50 lacs within four weeks from today, in that eventuality, the respondent no.1 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law particularly in view of the legal provision as contained in SARFAESI Act.

8. The DRT-I, Delhi is requested for expeditious disposal of S.A. bearing No. 288/2026 preferably on or before 31.03.2027. It is also made clear that all the pleas and contentions of both the parties shall be opened before DRT-I, Delhi during the trial of S.A. bearing No. 288/2026. On the request of Sh. Sanjiv Kakra, Senior Advocate, the appellant shall be at liberty to approach the respondent no.1 for amicable settlement for outstanding dues and it is expected that respondent no.1 shall sympathetically consider the proposal, if any, submitted by the appellant for final settlement.

9. Copy of this order be sent to DRT-I, Delhi for information and compliance.

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

-NS