SMT VANI G vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 30 January 2026

**ORDER**

The petitioner on 17.07.2025 filed an application under S.22(2)(h) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Act' – praying for a direction to the 1^st defendant to refund the sum of ₹17,02,811.44 deposited by her with it. The petitioner is the applicant in SA 432/2024, Digitized by eGangotri who is claimed to be a third party agreed to purchase the schedule immovable property as per the sale agreement dated 11.03.2022 from the 2^nd defendant.

2. The only issue arises for consideration is as to whether the UMA filed on 17.07.2025 is maintainable before this Tribunal?

3. The Issue:- At the outset, it may be noted that the application is a sheer abuse of the process of the Tribunal. No steps appear to have been taken as against the respondents/defendants as per the available records in the file except the photocopies of g-mail records. Despite the order by this Tribunal in the proceedings on 13.10.2025 to issue notices to the respondents/defendants by registered post/speed post or hand delivery the petitioner/applicant has not resorted to any direct delivery method but sent the notices by e-mail only whereas the receipt of the same could not be ensured. The same was sufficient had the respondents/defendants appeared before this Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner/applicant that she filed SA 432/2024 before this Tribunal against the same respondents/defendants wherein the opposite sides were represented by counsel. Yet there is no reason for the petitioner/applicant as to how she could not make a direct service in this case. For the said score alone, the UMA as against the respondents/defendants is liable to be dismissed.

4. The relief sought for is for a direction to the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant for refund of the sum of ₹17,02,811.44 deposited by the petitioner/applicant as per the direction of this Tribunal in SA 432/2024. The petitioner/applicant in paragraph 3 of the UMA under the head 'jurisdiction' has pleaded that the schedule immovable property is situated within the geographical jurisdiction of this Tribunal and hence the Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain the application. But no relief is sought for with respect to the schedule immovable property. Further, it is submitted therein that aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA 432/2024, she is filing the present application for which her remedy lies elsewhere and not in the present application.

Tribalty Kgp

5. Admittedly, the reported sum had been deposited by the petitioner/applicant in SA 432/2024. Therefore, the prayer for refund of the same ought to have been made in such proceedings only and not in a separate proceeding before this Tribunal. No application to set aside the aforesaid order dated 29.08.2024 on any ground is placed before this Tribunal. The money deposited with the 1^st defendant in SA 432/2024 is typically tied to the specific subject matter therein and the lis between the parties therein. This Tribunal cannot take a decision in a separate proceeding with regard to the issue in SA 432/2024. This Tribunal cannot take cognizance of a matter which is beyond the mandatory procedural law. If the money is to be returned because the purpose for which the same was deposited is failed or the case concluded, then an application for refund of the same shall be placed in the same case proceeding where it was deposited. Allowing such an action would lead to fragmented litigation and procedural inconsistencies, which law aims to avoid.

6. The petitioner/applicant in paragraph 4 of the application under the head 'limitation' has pleaded that the application is within the period of limitation as prescribed under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The present UMA Dy No.1968/2025 was presented before this Tribunal on 17.07.2025. On scrutiny the Registry noted a few defects including that of limitation as per the scrutiny hand's remarks dated 18.07.2025. The Registrar vide order dated 18.07.2025 granted time up to 04.08.2025 for curing the defects, which was further extended up to 11.09.2025. In the meantime, the petitioner/applicant filed IA 2132/2025 praying for condonation of delay of 195 days in presenting UMA Dy No.1968/2025. Therefore, the Registrar vide order dated 01.09.2025 placed IA 2132/2025 before this Tribunal for hearing on 02.09.2025. But despite repeated orders, the petitioner/applicant conspicuously did not take any step to issue notice to the opposite side. In the meantime, she filed a memo on 22.10.2025 stating that she was withdrawing IA 2132/2025. Admittedly, there is a huge delay in filing the present application, which Typed by: Ragh has not been explained before this Tribunal for which also the application is liable to be dismissed.

7. The petitioner/applicant in the facts of the case has pleaded that the instant application is filed under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act aggrieved by the measures taken by the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant under S.13(4) of the said Act, namely, the possession notice dated 24.04.2024 issued under S.13(4) of the said Act and the e-auction sale notices dated 23.07.2024 and 29.08.2024 for which the remedy of the petitioner/applicant lies elsewhere. The petitioner/applicant in the next line claims that the instant application is filed under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act as against the measures taken by the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act whereas the present application is quoted as 'Miscellaneous Application' filed under S.22(2)(h) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (the erstwhile name of the Act has been mistakenly used in the application). Again, going by the facts of the case, the petitioner/applicant alleges that though she paid the full sale consideration with respect to the sale agreement dated 11.03.2022 the 2^nd defendant did not execute the sale deed in respect of the schedule immovable property in her favour for which also the remedy lies elsewhere and this Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for the same.

8. On her own showing from the photocopies of the proceedings in SA 432/2024 produced before this Tribunal, she deposited the aforesaid amount willingly and voluntarily with the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant. It was submitted by her before this Tribunal that she was ready to pay off the loan amount due to the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant bank from the 2^nd respondent/2^nd defendant. Thereafter, SA 432/2024 was dismissed as infructuous as per the final order dated 02.09.2024. Therefore, this Tribunal has become functus officio with regard to the proceedings in SA 432/2024. Unless and until SA 432/2024 is restored to file, this Tribunal is not in a position to entertain the Tried to Page relief prayed for in the instant application whereas no such step has been taken by the petitioner/applicant.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a vexatious litigation in Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar and another [reported in (2003) 8 SCC 289] has warned the courts of law to be careful enough to see through the diabolical plans of the litigants, who prefer frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system. The relevant portion reads as below:

*"Therefore, raising a dispute in regard to the description or identity of the suit schedule property or a dispute in regard to the boundary of the suit schedule property is only a bogey to delay the eviction by the abuse of the process of court. Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgement-debtors to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system."*

10. As per sub-sections (3) and (4) of S.17 of the SARFAESI Act, the jurisdiction, power and authority of this Tribunal is to examine the facts and circumstances of the case based on the evidences adduced by both sides to verify as to whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of S.13 of the Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the instant case, the petitioner/applicant being absolute stranger to the proceedings have no case that she is aggrieved by any of the measures taken under S.13(4) of the Act by the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant and she no locus-standi to file the instant application. Also, the petitioner/applicant is not consistent in her pleadings. The petitioner/applicant is only dodging the issue and beating around the bush for her actual relief. The petitioner/applicant is free to approach the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant bank for her relief. She, admittedly, being a third party to the proceedings initiated by it, can request the bank to appropriate the amounts deposited by her towards the amounts claimed as due from the 2^nd respondent/2^nd defendant provided she wants to settle the matter in respect of the schedule immovable property or can request the bank to make a refund of the same and allow the bank to proceed against the schedule immovable Typed in Kpg property for which the bank has to take a decision according to its policies and the extant procedures. All these things are internal matters and policies of the secured creditor for which this Tribunal has only very little say. Although the petitioner/applicant has made a pleading that the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant refused to entertain her request, she has no case that she submitted a request in writing before it. If such a request is made, the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant is free to take a decision in accordance with law.

11. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion as above, UMA Dy No.1968/2025 is liable to be rejected as devoid of any merit.

12. In the result, UMA with Dy No.1968/2025 is rejected for not maintainable. All pending IAs stand closed. No costs.

*[Dictated to my P.A. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 30^th day of January, 2026]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI ] **PRESIDING OFFICER**

Tribunal Krip

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 30^th day of January, 2026

**UNREGISTERED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (UMA) [(Dy No.1968/2025)]**

Between

Vani G, W/o late Manish, 6A, Sivaraj Mansion, Ramanjappa Layout, Opp to DRDO Compound, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560016. .... Petitioner/Applicant

And

Union Bank, Sree Kamala 69 feet Road, 11^th Cross, Annaporneshwari Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560091, represented by its authorised officer ands another. .... Respondents/Defendants

**FINAL ORDER**

30.01.26