Parshav Infotech vs Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited on 6 February 2026

ORDER

IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2026 (Delivered on 06.02.2026)

PARSHAV INFOTECH

... Applicant

Versus

ANAND RATHI GLOBAL FINANCE LIMITED

... Respondent

Advocate Ramesh a/w Adv. Acharya Vijay Anand for the Applicant.

Advocate R.L. Motwani a/w Adv. Krishna for the Respondent.

1. The present application is filed by applicant who is the assignor of the premises herein to R2, who had paid only Rs.69 Lakhs as part of the sale consideration. Without notice to applicant R2 had created mortgage by deposit of title deeds with R1, and the balance amount was still payable by R2 to applicant.

2. Applicant is then seen to have filed SA 120 of 2021 for declaration that the security interest created by R2 as invalid and to set aside the symbolic possession got effected by R1. On 19.12.2023 R1 and applicant had entered into a settlement and the Tribunal had passed an order on the date as follows:

"Advocate Mr. M. Ramesan for the Applicant.

Advocate Mr. J. 1. Kazi for the Respondent No.1.

Other Respondents absent.

Both parties are ready to settle the matter and according to the counsel for the Applicant, the Respondent No.1 can sell the property and out of the sale proceeds, he may be given Rs.45 Lakhs when the property is sold and this proposal of the Applicant is acceptable to the Respondent No.1 provided the Applicant hands over the vacant possession to facilitate the sale of the property for fetching more sale consideration. So, in view of the amicable settlement between the Applicant and Respondent No.1, the Applicant shall deliver the possession to the Respondent No.1 within two weeks from today and the Respondent No.1 shall sell the property and out of sale proceeds, the Applicant shall be given Rs.45 Lakhs. In case of breach of the aforesaid conditions by any of the parties, the parties would be at liberty to apply to this Tribunal for revival of the S.A. Accordingly, Securitization Application No.120 of 2021 stands disposed of.

A handwritten signature in black ink, consisting of a stylized 'M' or 'W' shape followed by a long horizontal line extending to the right.

*File be consigned to the Record room."*

3. The SA 120 of 2021 stood disposed off with liberty to parties to apply for revival in case of any breach of the condition stated in the order. On 19.03.2024, in the restoration application filed, DRT had passed the following order.

*"Advocate Mr. M. Ramesh for the Applicant.*

*Advocate Mr. G. I. Kazi for the Respondent.*

*Counsel for the Applicant submits that his client is ready and willing to keep the key in the Society's Office for the inspection of the property to the parties brought by the Respondent and the Respondent will try his level best to dispose of the property in a period of 6 months and in case the property is not sold, then the Applicant has agreed to pay the amount which was taken by the Respondent No.2, i.e. Rs.69 Lakhs. The Applicant is directed to place the key in the Office of the Society, so, that the Respondent can bring customer for inspection of the property in question.*

*Now for settlement, to come up on 26.09.2024."*

A handwritten signature, possibly in ink, consisting of several vertical and diagonal strokes that form a stylized, somewhat abstract shape.

4. Now the applicant alleges that R1 under the guise of the said order took the keys as directed therein and illegally took possession of the subject premises herein without informing the applicant, and further put up a sale notice on 24.11.2025 for e-auction on 25.12.2025 which was adjourned to 19.01.2026 as no buyer had turned up. So by of present petition applicant is requesting to restore the SA 120 of 2021, as the terms of settlement are violated by R1.

5. The Ld. Counsel for R1 contends that no case is made out by the applicant and that there are no merits in the present prayer for restoration. The measures taken by R1 are valid and proper under the SARFAESI Act. so, the petition by applicant is only to be dismissed.

6. Though argument notes are filed by the applicant, R1 without filing any such notes had stated that the reply filed by R1 may be taken as argument notes on the side of R1.

7. Both sides are heard.

8. It is to be noted that both sides conceded the Tribunal has passed order on 19.12.2023 and 19.03.2024 as stated above. In neither of the said orders, is there a direction permitting R1 to conduct any auction sale on any date. Both the orders only state that in view of the terms of settlement arrived at between R1 and applicant, R1 can use the key entrusted with the society office to allow the prospective buyers to have an inspection of the premises. The further direction was if the premises is not sold for a period upto 06 months, applicant has to pay Rs.69 Lakhs, which was the part consideration from R2.

9. The aforesaid order passed on 19.03.2024 permitted R1 to bring prospective buyers for six months i.e. upto 19.09.2024. If sale could not be effected during the said period, as per the terms of settlement, the possible course open to R1 was to approach the Tribunal for further steps. As stated above, neither of the aforesaid orders granted permission to R1 to effect sale of the premises herein after the lapse of six months i.e. 19.09.2024, or to conduct e-auction.

10. The said act by R1 is definitely an action in violation of the terms of the settlement agreement, agreed to by the parties herein, before the Tribunal, resulting in the orders dt.19.12.2023 and 19.03.2024. So, R1 is seen to have violated the terms of the settlement, as is directed in the aforesaid orders. The applicant is seen to have exhibited his bonafides by remitting the amount of Rs.69 Lakhs as directed in the order dt.19.03.2024. As directed in the said order, the applicant has the right to approach the DRT for getting the SA revived. So the applicant is entitled to have the SA 120 of 2021 restored to file and, the petition is allowed as above.

Date: 06.02.2026

I/c Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai-III (Sreekala Suresh)