Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
HDFC BANK vs SWIFT AND SAFE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. on 13 October 2026
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Misc. Appeal No.26512026
Arising out of O.A. No.6lIl202S (DRT-II, Dethi)
HDFC Bank Limited
V.
l{/s Swift and safe Logistics private Limited & others Item No.25
13.10.2026 Hon'bre Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Present: Sh. Sanjeev pathak, Advocate for the appellant This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
1' The appellant filed O.A. bearing no.61l/2025 titled as HDFC Bank Limited V.
ItI/s Swift and Safe Logistics Private Limited & others which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. Appellant being the applicant of the o.A. filed an application bearing I.A. No.122l/2026 for the sale of hypothecated vehicles which were taken in custody by the Commissioner appointed by DRT. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the value of the vehicles is depreciating and as such the Authorized officer of the appellant may be permitted to sell the vehicles under Section l9(18)(e) of the RDB Act. DRT vide the impugned order dated 22.06.2026
has dismissed the said application. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.06.2026 is reproduced as under:-
4. The Ld. counser for he appricant has submitted that under Section 19(1s) of the RDB Act the Tribunal has power to sell the property for realization of the amount during the pendency of the OA' When no procedure has been prescribed for the sale of the property, the Tribunal considers that the sale cannot be conducted without adopting the procedure. Before seiling any property whether it may be movable or immovabre, the valuation of the properfy called from the Government approved valuer and then after giving notice to the borrower the sale has to be conducted both under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and under the provisions of the RDB Act, whereas the applicant is seeking to sell the vehicles without fotlo_wing any procedure and giving a blanket order to the Authorized officer of the appricant uanr< ts se[ the property at its whims. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that the Tribunal is not inclined to permit the sare of the property to the Authorised officer of the applicant bank. If the "ppii"urrt bank is of the opinion
that the value of the vehicles is depreciating, he may take steps under the provisions of the SARFAEST a.t for the sale of th; ;";;:- 5' In view of the above the IA no.l22lt2026 is liable to be dismissed.
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.
Order
lA no.l22ll202f is hereby dismissed. 2' Sh'Sanjeev Pathak, Advocate for the appellant during the course of arguments has refered to Section 19(18)(e) of the RDB Act and argued that DRT has not appreciated the legal provisions in the right perspective and argued that the value of the hypothecated vehicles seized by the bank is depreciating every day and it would be in the interest ofjustice that the said vehicles are allowed to be sold. Sh. Pathak, in support of his case, has cited the decision of the Allah abad,High Court in the case Scientific Instrument Co. Limited & others V. Bank of India & others, 2005 (33) AIC 148 wherein in para 16 it was observed as under:- Thus the power conferred upon the Tribunal under Section l9(lg)(e) of the Act being an ancillary power in aid of main power under Section 17 of the Act this Court has no hesitation to hold that such a power can be extended for directing sale of the property of the borrower even before issuance of the recovery certificate in case where the Tribunal finds it just and necessary. Such a power has been expressly conferred in order to safeguard the interest of the Banks and Financial Institutions inasmuch as there may be case where the entire property of the borrower may be wasted/destroyed: or transferred/encumbered during pendency of proceedings which may result, in no money due to the nanlVFinancial Institutions after adjudication of application Uy the Tribunal. It is for safeguarding such a situation andl in order to ensure that the power of Tribunal under Section 17 is not rendered a mere paper transaction, the legislatur. hT. stepped in by providing for the "n.ittr.y power under Section 19(18)(e). The aforesaid conclusion is furth.. rrpport by the reasoning that in cases where the property belonging to the borrower (i) is perishable or (ii) where there is likelihood of thl ,ulu. of the property being: diminish drasticallyr e.B. fixed plants and machineries which are Iying idle for a considerable time, or (iii) where the value of the property available is such that the computation of mounting interest during, pendency of the proceeding can never be recovered after final adjudication. (Note-there are only few examples and not exhaust) the Tribunal can direct sale of the property tlirough Commissioner in exercise of powers Hinder section tllis;1e; of the Act even during the pendency of the proceedings where a final recovery certificate has not been issued. The money so derived can always be adjusted under orders of the Tribunal and made subject to th; ultimate success: of the application.
3. In view of the submissions made by Sh. Sanjeev Pathak and the above judgment passed by the Allahabad High Couft, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed and the application bearing no.l22ll2026 is remanded to the DRT-II, Delhi for fresh consideration in right perspective in the light of the above judgement passed by the Allahabad High Court, which was not considered by DRT while passing the impugned order dated 22.06.2026, and also other legal provisions. The appellant is directed to appear before DRT-II, Delhi for further direction on 23.10.2026, the date already fixed, and DRT is directed to dispose of said application bearing I.A. No.122112026 afresh in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the next date of hearing after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
4. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 3*:"2. (Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson -pks