SH HARJINDER SINGH vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 8 October 2026

1. 1. Sh. Sonal Anand, Advocate for the appellant stated that the appellant is neither the borrower nor the guarantor nor mortgagor and as such he is not required to make the pre-deposit.

2. 2. In the present appeal the challenge is to order dated 22.07.2026 passed by DRT-II, Delhi in S.A. bearing no.TSA No.215/2022 titled as **Harjinder Singh V. Punjab National Bank & others**. It is reflecting that the appellant filed S.A. under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act with the prayer to declare the action and the measures initiated by the respondent no.1 in respect of the subject property i.e. Commercial Shop bearing no.6, situated on ground floor, shop area measuring about 5.74 sq. mt. without roof right/terrace rights a part of free hold property bearing municipal corporation no.580-581, at Gali Cha Shirin, Farash Khana, Sharda Nand market, P.S. Lahori Gate, Delhi illegal and arbitrary and also for quashing the same.

3. 3. DRT-II, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2026 has dismissed the S.A. It is reflecting from the perusal of the impugned order dated 22.07.2026 that the appellant claimed to be in peaceful possession of the subject property since 30.10.2014 having purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.2014 from the respondent no.4 and the respondent no.4 was the absolute and original owner of the subject property by virtue of Partition Deed registered on 29.11.2007. The appellant claimed that he had never mortgaged the subject property with the respondent no.1 since execution of Sale Deed dated 30.10.2014. The appellant is the sole owner and in continued possession of the subject property. The appellant claimed to have received the notice dated 22.05.2019 addressed to the respondents 2 and 3 under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act which was found pasted on the outer wall of the subject property. The appellant vide his letter dated 03.06.2019 informed the respondent no.1 that he was in possession of the subject property since 30.10.2014. The appellant came to know that the respondent no.3 Karan Arora had availed certain loan facilities in the year 2016. The appellant also made a police complaint against the respondent no.3 on 13.07.2019. The respondent no.1 being financial institution proceeded further under Section 14 of the Act for taking possession of the subject property. The Receiver so appointed by the Court of CMM also affixed a notice dated 14.08.2019 on the property which was also addressed to the respondent no.3 Karan Arora for taking possession on 31.08.2019 of the subject property alleged to have been mortgaged by the respondent no.3 in favour of the respondent no.1, which does not affect right, title or interest of the appellant in respect of the subject property. It was accordingly prayed that all actions and measures resorted to and initiated by the respondent no.1 be declared illegal and quashed.

4. The respondent no.1 filed response to the S.A wherein it was stated that the subject property is a commercial shop bearing shop No.6. The respondent no.1 has advanced credit facilities to the tune of Rs.50 lacs in favour of M/s Dadi Maa Overseas of which the respondent no.3 Karan Arora was the proprietor and the borrower has created equitable mortgage over three commercial properties including the subject property i.e. shop no.6. The borrower also executed letter of confirmation of mortgage of deposit of title deeds dated 11.08.2016. The borrower has failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the credit facility availed from the respondent no.1 and such the loan account was declared NPA. The respondent no.1 has initiated appropriate measures under the SARFAESI Act for seeking enforcement of security interest in the secured asset.

4.1 The respondent no.1 further stated that the sale deed dated 24.05.2016 stated to be executed by Gaurav Arora i.e. the respondent no.4 in favour of the appellant on 30.10.2014 refers to a shop bearing private no.6 measuring 7.12 sq. metres and such shop was distinct from the dimension of the shop mortgaged with the respondent no.1. The entire property was initially purchased by a partnership firm comprising of three partners, namely, Meghraj, Kishan Chand and Kasturi Lal and each of them was having 1/3^rd share. Kishan Chand was found to be missing and presumed to be dead and his share was devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. wife Lajwanti and son Sunil Arora who became owner of 1/3^rd share of Kishan Chand and sold the share to Inder Arora, Gaurav Arora i.e. respondent no.4 and Karan Arora i.e. respondent no.3 vide sale deed dated 6.07.1999. Meghraj also expired and his legal heir bequeathed 1/3^rd undivided share in favour of Inder Arora, Gaurav Arora and Karan Arora who as such acquired 2/3^rd undivided share in the property. Subsequently, partition deed dated 29.09.2001 was executed between Inder Arora, Gaurav Arora, Karan Arora and Kasturi Lal who was owner of remaining $1/3^{\text{rd}}$ share of the property. On account of partition, ground floor and first floor had come in the share of Inder Arora, Gaurav Arora i.e. respondent no.4 and Karan Arora i.e. respondent no.3 and second floor came into the share of Kasturi Lal. Inder Arora, Gaurav Arora and Karan Arora also executed Partition Deed on 29.11.2007. Karan Arora i.e. respondent no.3 and the Gaurav Arora respondent no.4 executed registered sale deed dated 02.03.2009 in favour Inder Arora in respect of two shops bearing private number 6 and 8 situated on the ground floor of the property. Accordingly Inder Arora has acquired title in respect of the subject property i.e. shop bearing private no.6 measuring 5.74 sq. metre and Inder Arora subsequently sold shop no.6 to Karan Arora and in respect of said shop equitable mortgage was created in favour of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 accordingly prayed that the S.A. be dismissed.

5. It is reflecting that Karan Arora i.e. respondent no.3 acquired right, title or interest in respect of the shop bearing private no.6 which is stated to be the secured asset. Sh. Sonal Anand, Advocate for the appellant during the course of arguments could not refer any document which can reflect that the respondent no.4 Gaurav Arora was having any right, title or interest in the subject property, i.e. Shop no.6 and was competent to transfer the same in favour of the appellant vide Sale Deed dated 30.10.2014. The perusal of the impugned order reflects that DRT in the impugned 22.07.2026 has considered all the relevant issues as raised on behalf of the appellant appropriately and in right perspective. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as having no merit.

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

-pk\$