Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs ANANTKUMAR DATTATRAY JADHAV on 5 October 2026
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI
Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson Regular Appeal No. 27/2023
Between
HDB Financial Service Ltd. & Anr.
… Appellant/s
V/s.
Anantkumar Dattatray Jadhav & Ors.
…Respondent/s
-: Order dated: 05/10/2026: -
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. Padmakar Garad i/b M/s. SG Legal & Associates, Counsel for Appellants. Mr. Rajesh Nagori along with Mr. Anshu R. Deshpande along with Mr. Anshu Deshpande, Counsel for Respondents.
2. The Learned Counsel for the parties at bar would submit that vide order dated 23.07.2026 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 9118/2026 has directed this Appellate Tribunal to decide the present appeal on or before 31.10.2026.
3. The Learned Counsel for the parties would further submit that the present Appeal can be decided with the consent of the parties, as the impugned order passed by the Learned Lower Tribunal is erroneous on the point that the Appellant/Financial Institution does not have the right to proceed against the Respondent/Borrower under the SARFAESI Act.
They would further submit that, as the impugned order is erroneous in law on this point, the present Appeal may be remanded to the Learned Lower Tribunal/DRT with a direction to decide the Securitization Application No.
filed by the Respondent/Borrower de novo on merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order and by the observations made by this Appellate Tribunal.
4. The Counsel for the Respondent/Borrower would further submit that, in the present Securitization Application, an Interim Application, being I.A. No. 417/2018, seeking interim protection against dispossession has been filed. Therefore, the Learned Lower Tribunal/DRT be directed to decide the said Interim Application expeditiously. He would further submit that till the said Interim Application is decided by the DRT, this Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to grant interim protection against dispossession.
5. The Counsel for the Appellant/Bank would submit that he has no objection to the expeditious disposal of I.A. No. 417/2018 and to the grant of interim protection till the decision of the said Interim Application by the DRT. However, he would further submit that the Respondent/Borrower shall not seek any adjournment before the DRT at the time of hearing of the said Interim Application.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the DRT-Nagpur, in Securitization Application No.
85/2018 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur with the direction to decide the said Securitization Application de-novo on merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order or by any observations made by this Appellate Tribunal.
7. The parties shall be at liberty to file their respective replies, if not already filed, before the DRT, Nagpur, to the Memo of Appeal and the Interim Applications.
8. The DRT, Nagpur, is further directed to decide I.A. No. 417/2018 seeking interim relief expeditiously. Till the decision of the said Interim Application, the Appellant/Bank shall not dispossess the Respondent/Borrower from the secured asset.
9. The Respondent/Borrower shall not seek any adjournment in the hearing of the said Interim Application.
10. The Learned DRT, Nagpur is requested to decide the said Interim Application expeditiously.
11. Accordingly, the Regular Appeal No. 27/2023 is disposed of.
12. All pending, I.As if any, stand dismissed. Sd/- Chairperson 05.10.2026
VKC-02