Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Mangal Dev Bariwal vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 20 August 2026
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI
Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson
I.A. No. 395/2026 (WoD)
In
Regular Appeal Diary No. 1044/2026
Between
Mangal Dev Bariwal
… Appellant/s
V/s.
Central Bank of India
…Respondent/s
-: Order dated: 20/08/2026: -
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Present as under:
Mr. Mangal Bariwal, Applicant/Appellant, present in person. Mr. Arkesh Ayyagari, Counsel for Respondent No.1 Ms. Aparna Bariwal, Respondent No.2, present in person through VC.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 filed the preliminary affidavit cum objection to the appeal and the replies to the applications for condonation of delay and the waiver application. Same are taken on record.
4. The Applicant/Appellant would submit that he is neither the borrower nor the guarantor in the loan transaction and that possession of the property was taken on 01.04.2026 by Respondent No. 1/Bank illegally; that, the property of which possession has been taken by
Respondent No. 1/Bank is owned by his wife, i.e., Respondent No. 2, who is the registered owner of the said property. Therefore, the possession of the same should be ordered to be restored to him forthwith as an interim measure.
5. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would submit that the main prayer in Para No. 6.3 of the appeal is to release the property of Mrs. Aparna Bariwal who is the Respondent No.2 in appeal not the Appellant. He would further submit that the submission of the Applicant/Appellant that he is the owner of this property means that this property was “Benami property” and, by virtue of Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, no suit property, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property; that, accordingly, this appeal cannot be entertained and is liable to be rejected along with all Miscellaneous Applications. He would further submit that there is a delay of 226 days in filing the appeal, according to the Applicant/Appellant himself; therefore, the said application has to be decided first before granting any interim relief.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1would further submit that the appeal has been filed by the Appellant describing himself as “Director-M/s. Pentacool Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd.”, as stated in the memo of parties, therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the Appellant to submit that he was not the borrower; that, hence, Applicant/Appellant is liable to pay the mandatory pre-deposit as per Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before his appeal and even before the application for condonation of delay can be entertained and heard.
7. Considered and perused the records.
8. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in R/Misc. Application (For Contempt) No. 1930/2026, vide its order dated 06.08.2026 has directed this Appellate Tribunal not to deal with the property in any manner.
9. In view of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, it would not be appropriate to pass any order in respect of the property in question.
10. The Applicant/Appellant, appearing in person, would submit that the next date of hearing in the contempt petition is 31.08.2026.
11. List the case on 04.09.2026 for hearing. Sd/- Chairperson Psa-09