MRS APARNA BARIWAL AND ANR vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 25 September 2025

1. The Applicants have filed the present Misc.Application seeking following relies:

*a) Applicant property index is attached (Annexure K) with SA 97/2023, has to be released immediately and recover all dues and liabilities from 2 more property of defaulter director of Company and principal borrower mortgaged properties, which is under control of Applicants.*

*b) Award 5000 Rs. Per day to Applicants after 30 days of DRT2 judgment if bank official not released the property as per RBI governor order.*

*c) Grant Compensation of 2 Cr. to Applicants, as Applicants lost business because of unfair banking practices adopted by corrupt bank officer.*

*d) To grant any other relief, which the Hon'ble DRT court deems fit, may please be granted to the Appellant in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.*

*e) To grant cost of the fees of SA/MISC. Application.*

1. 2. Mr. Mangal Dev Bariwal, party in person on behalf of the Applicants, submitted that though this Tribunal has passed judgment dated 28.08.2023 in SA No.97/2023, the Authorised Officer of the Respondent is not releasing the property of Aparna Bariwal i.e. Applicant No.1 herein. He further submitted that he has requested the concerned Authorised Officer of the Respondent Bank to comply the order passed in aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal, and has also filed complaint to the police against concerned branch manager, his complained has been closed by police due to political influence.

2. 3. The Respondent has filed reply to the present Misc.Application by way of preliminary objection vide Ex.R/07 and denied the statements and averments made by the Applicants.

3. 4. I have heard Mr.Bariwal- Party in person as well as Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank.

4. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that earlier the Respondent Bank had issued Demand Notice dated 16.07.2021 and had taken symbolic possession of the property in question on 04.01.2023, which was challenged by the Applicants before this Tribunal by way of SA No.97/2023, including legality and validity of the mortgage created by the Applicants. The said SA No.97/2023 came to be disposed of by this Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 28.08.2023. This Tribunal quashed and set aside Demand Notice dated 16.07.2021 and Possession Notice dated 04.01.2023, however, upheld the mortgage created by Applicant No.1 in favour of the Respondent Bank. Not only that, this Tribunal also granted liberty to the Respondent Bank to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said liberty, the Respondent Bank has again issued fresh Demand Notice dated 27.12.2024 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act to the Applicants demanding an amount of Rs.30,07,074.85. However, the Applicants have neither raised any objections to the said Demand Notice nor have paid the amount to the Bank. Therefore, the Authorised Officer proceeded further u/s 13(4) and again took symbolic possession of the property in question on 06.06.2025. Therefore, the Applicants have no right to file Misc.Application for implementation of the judgment and order passed by this Tribunal on 28.08.2023 in SA No.97/2023 and hence, the present Misc.Application deserves to be dismissed.

1. 6. On perusal of copy of the judgment dated 28.08.2023 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.97/2023, it appears that the Demand Notice dated 16.07.2021 issued u/s 13(2) and the action of taking symbolic possession of the property in question u/s 13(4) on 04.01.2023 were set aside and the Respondent Bank was directed to restore symbolic possession of the property in question to the Applicants, with an opportunity to proceed afresh in accordance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder. It further appears from the said judgment that existence of valid and legal mortgage over the residential property of Applicant No.1 was accepted by this Tribunal and the Respondent Bank was entitled to enforce the same for recovery of its outstanding dues. It is common knowledge that symbolic possession of property is taken constructively and not physically or actually. Therefore the action u/s 13(4) taken earlier by the Respondent Bank against the property in question on 04.01.2023 is automatically nullified on being set aside by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 28.08.2023 in SA No.97/2023.

2. 7. It may further be noted that on the strength of opportunity granted by this Tribunal, the Respondent Bank appears to have issued fresh Demand Notice dated 27.12.2024

demanding an amount of Rs.30,07,074.85 with further interest thereon and other parties to the Applicants. Since the Applicants do not appear to have raised any objections against the said Demand Notice in exercise of their rights u/s 13(3A), the Respondent Bank appears to have proceeded further by again taking symbolic possession of the property in question on 06.06.2025 u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act.

1. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it becomes clear that legal and valid Security Interest over the property in question still exists in favour of the Respondent Bank, which having opportunity granted by this Tribunal to proceed afresh, has initiated fresh measures against the Applicants and their property in question u/s 13(2) and u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the question of issuing any direction by this Tribunal against the Respondent Bank for releasing the property of Applicant No.1, as prayed for, does not arise. If the Applicants are aggrieved by the fresh measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act against the property in question, they have remedy available to file fresh Securitization Application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act.

2. 9. In light of aforesaid discussion, this Misc.Application has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed, without any order as to cost.

Order accordingly.

Let the file be consigned to the record.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**

Nishita.