MITINBHAI PRAVINCHANDRA SHAH AND ANR vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED on 21 August 2026

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson I.A. No.522/2026 (Stay) In

Misc. Appeal No. 124/2026 Between

Mitinbhai Pravinchandra Shah & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. The Authorized Officer, LIC Housing Finance Limited …Respondent/s

-: Order dated: 21/08/2026: -

Present as under:

Mr. Gaurang Kinkhabwala i/b Ms. Kanjani Trivedi, Counsel for the Applicants/Borrowers. Mr. Vidhyadhar Shinde i/b M/s. Singhania & Co., Counsel for the Respondent/LIC HFL.

2. Heard on the Interlocutory Application I.A. No. 522/2026, moved by the Applicants/Borrowers with a prayer for grant of status quo in respect of the property scheduled as stated in Securitization Application No. 349/2025.

3. At this stage, this Appellate Tribunal deems it appropriate to observe that in the prayer clause there is no complete details of the property in respect of which any interim relief is sought and even the relief sought is also not stated in specific and clear terms.

4. The Counsel for the Applicants/Borrowers would submit that the main appeal is filed against the impugned order 11.05.2026 whereby the Learned DRT disallowed the interim relief prayer to restrain the Respondent from dispossessing the Applicants/Borrowers from the property in question ( which has not been completely stated in the present application except referred as scheduled property).

5. At very inception of hearing of this application, the Counsel for the Applicants/Borrowers would submit on query of this Appellate Tribunal that no separate interim application was filed for the interim relief against the dispossession in the Securitization Application No. 349/2025 before the Learned DRT-1, Ahmedabad.

He would further submit that in Ahmedabad DRTs the practice being followed is to make the prayer for the interim relief in this Securitization Application itself.

He would be fair and candid enough to concede that generally no court fee is paid in the additional prayer for interim relief in the Securitization Application.

He would further submit that in this case also the court fees for the interim relief, which was stated in this Securitization Application itself, was not paid, however, the Learned DRT-I, Ahmedabad heard the parties for interim relief and rejected the same by impugned order.

In view of the above, this Appellate Tribunal is of the view that the Learned DRTs hearing of the parties on the interim relief without their being filed an interim application separately court fees as per law paid, is not the correct procedure of law and this practice is nothing but loss to the revenue to the government.

The Copy to this order be sent to the all DRTs under the jurisdiction of DRAT-Mumbai for taking effective measures by directing their respective Registry for taking corrective steps to ensure that court fees for interim relief is also paid.

6. Heard.

7. The Counsel for the Applicants/Borrowers would submit that the symbolic possession of the property was taken on date 03.09.2025 against which the Securitization Application No. 349/2025 was filed. During the pendency of the same order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was obtained by the Respondent Bank on 18.02.2026 from Ld. CJM Ahmedabad and the same has also been challenged by moving the Amendment Application in the Securitization Application No. 349/2025.

8. The Counsel for the Applicants/Borrowers would assail the impugned order on the ground that in the demand notice dated 27.05.2025 the details of the amount demanded, that is to say, rate of interest were not specifically stated ; that , the name and designation of the bank official issuing it was also not stated on that notice. The Counsel for the Applicants/Borrowers would further submit that as per calculation of the Applicants/Borrowers, the amount of Rs. 1.26 crores approximately has been paid. However, the last payment was made in year 2023 whereas later payment was made thereafter on the order of the Appellate Tribunal.

9. The Counsel for the Applicants/Borrowers would submit that the order from the Ld. Magistrate was taken without complying with the provision of the under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He would further submit that it has come in the impugned order itself that applicants/Borrowers have given the reply to notice under Section 13(2) of Act, but in affidavit by Bank with application under Section 14 of the Act. It was stated on the point that no reply was given by the Applicants/Borrowers to the notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act.

10. Per Contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank would submit that the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Applicants/Borrowers are incorrect and not borne out of the record.

He would further submit that even if there is a wrong statement in the affidavit that no reply was given by the Applicants/Borrowers to the notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act then the same has not caused any prejudice to the Applicants/Borrowers. He would further submit that the details of the amount in notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given clearly, therefore, this submission is misconceived.

11. Considered and perused the records.

12. Perusal of the impugned order would reflect that the Learned Lower Tribunal passed the impugned order in detail after hearing the parties at length and considered all the points and contentions raised by the Applicants/Borrowers.

13. The submissions made by the Counsel for the Applicants/Borrower are on technical nature and that does not prejudice his defence.

14. It would not be out of the place to remind oneself that at the time of decision on interim relief application, the only judicial exercise that has to be done is to see if the Applicant has good prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour and if the interim relief is not granted then the Applicants/Borrowers would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated otherwise. However, in his submissions, the Counsel for the Applicants/Borrowers could not make out any case that the balance of convenience lies in his favour and he has good prima facie case.

15. Last but not least, this impugned order is passed, as admitted above by the Learned Counsel, on the prayer for interim relief made in the main Securitization Application on which even no fees was paid.

16. In view of the above this I.A. No. 522/2026 is dismissed. However, it is made clear that these observations made hereinabove shall not have any bearing on merits for the final disposal of the appeal.

17. List the case on 08.12.2026 for further proceedings. Sd/- Chairperson VKC-18