Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
JAGDISHKUMAR NARANBHAI PATEL AND ORS vs BANK OF INDIA on 20 August 2026
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI
Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson
I.A. Diary No. 517/2025
In
Misc. Appeal No. 114/2026
Between
Mr. Jagdishkumar Naranbhai Patel & Ors.
… Appellant/s
V/s.
The Authorised Officer,
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. Gaurang Kinkhabwala, Counsel for Appellants. Mr. Anant B. Shinde, Counsel for Respondent/Bank.
2. There is an objection by the Registry, however, the same is overruled in view of the fact that the Respondent is already before this Tribunal. Meanwhile, the Appellant may cure the defects.
3. Heard on the Application for interim relief.
4. The Counsel for the Appellant would submit that he has a good prima facie case as he is the borrower and owner of the property which is under threat of dispossession pursuant to the order dated 01.08.2026.
5. The Counsel for the Appellant/Borrower would submit that there is no bifurcation in the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) by the Respondent/Bank for demanding the dues; that, there is non- compliance of Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 when the Respondent/Bank took symbolic possession of the property on 19.07.2024; that, when the Respondent/Bank took possession of the property through the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar on 09.01.2025, the Respondent/Bank did not file the correct affidavit along with the application as mandatorily required under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; that, the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Ld. CJM directing taking of possession of the property also directed that the possession be taken on a public holiday
6. Per Contra, Mr. Shinde, Counsel for the Respondent/Bank, would submit that the submission of the Applicant/Borrower that there is no bifurcation of the amount in the demand notice dated 05.07.2024 is incorrect. He would refer to the same at Page No. 227 of the memo of appeal and would submit that the bifurcation has been made in a tabular form, wherein the amount of outstanding dues as on the date of NPA, along with interest applied up to 10.06.2024, has been specifically stated. It is further stated that subsequent interest from 10.06.2024 to 05.07.2024 at the rate of 8.45% per annum with monthly rests is also stated
7. The Counsel for the Respondent would further submit that now the possession is proposed to be taken on 22.08.2026, which is not a public holiday; therefore, the Appellant has no basis in this argument.
8. Now, this Appellate Tribunal is to consider whether the Applicant/Borrower has any good prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and, if so, whether he would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated otherwise, if interim relief is not granted.
9. The perusal of the record, in the light of the submissions made by the Counsel, would show that the notice under Section 13(2) dated 05.07.2024 was issued to the guarantor. The perusal of the demand notice would further reflect that the Respondent/Bank has mentioned the bifurcation of the principal outstanding dues, interest charged, rate of interest, sanctioned limit, nature of facility and details of the security interest in respect of the home loan and top-up loan separately.
10. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Magistrate had passed the order directing taking of possession on a public holiday does not hold water, as the interim application seeks relief against dispossession on 22.08.2026, which happens to be a working day and not a public holiday.
11. The argument of the Counsel for the Appellant/Borrower regarding non-compliance with the nine-point affidavit in accordance with all the clauses of the proviso to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is also not sustainable.
12. Perusal of the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Magistrate would reflect that, at the time of passing the said order, the Ld. CJM had mentioned all the relevant details and had also considered the provisions of Section 14 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the High Court.
13. In view of the above, this Appellate Tribunal is of the considered view that the Appellant/Borrower has utterly failed to show any good prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour. Consequently, the question of irreparable loss does not arise.
14. I.A. Diary No. 517/2025 is accordingly 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.
15. List the matter on 07.12.2026 for further proceedings. Sd/- Chairperson Vkc-22