SAROJ BALA vs ICICI BANK LIMITED on 22 October 2026

l)El]'l's ltECOVElly Al,l,ELLA'I'E'l'RIIltJNAl,, I)E LII I Appcal No.304/2026 Arising out of SA NDN No. 234112026 (l)R'l'-ll, C'handigarh) Itcm No.37 Saroj llala V ICICI llank l,imited & othcrs 22.10.2026 IIon'hlc I)r. .Iusticc Sudhir Kumar.lain I)rcsct-rt: Sh. I)ccpak Joon, Aclvocatc lor appcllar-rt through VC Sli. I{ahul (iarg, Aclvocatc for rospondcnts no. I & 2 through VC 'l'his mattcr is takcn up through I Iybrid hcaring.

l. 'l'hc appcllant lilccl thc S.A. bcaring NI)N No. 234112026 titlod as Saroj llala V ICICI llank [,imitcd & others, which was statcd to bc pcnding bcfbrc thc I)lt'l'- II, Chancligarl'r. 'l'hc appollant rnaclc intcrim rclicl'praycr for rcstraining thc rcsponclcttts no 1 &.21|;inancial Institution lror-r-r taking posscssion o[thc clisputccl propcrty and also to n'raintain thc sl.al.us-c1uo <>l' thc subjcct propcrty during thc pcnclcncy ol'thc procccclings. 'l'hc appcllant has also challongcd thc dcrnand noticc clatcd 30.12.202-5 passcci undcr Scction l4 of thc SAItliAliSI Act.'l'hc appcllant is clain'ring to bc in thc posscssion of thc subjcct propcrty bcing thc subscqucnt bonufic{e purchascr.

2. 'l'hc I)lt'l'-ll, Chandigarh vidc ordcr datcd 08.09.2026 has obsorvccl that thc appcllant clairncd to havc purchaso thc subjcct propcrty on 01.07.2022 but thc sccurity intcrcst was crcatcd in lavour of thc rcspondcnts no. 1 & 2 in thc ycar 2006 as such thc cl-rargc of thc rcsponclcnts no. 1 &" 2 ovcr thc subjcct propcrly was tnuc;h prior to thc cxccution of purchasc by tho appcllant in thc ycar 2022.

3. 'l'hc l)lt'l'-ll, Char-rdigarl-r also obscrvcd that thc SA was also barrcd by lin"ritation and did not givc thc bcncfit to thc appcllant lor thc procccdings statcd to havc bccn initiatcd bclorc thc Civil Court and thc IIigh Court. It is also rcflccting that thc Writ I'}ctition bcaring CWl'} No. 27060 ol' 2026 titlcd as Saroj llala V

ICICI llank Limitcd & othcrs filcd trcftrrc thc l)unjab & I Iaryana I Iigh Court which was ordcrcd to bc disrnisscd as withdrawn vidc orclcr datccl 25.08.2026.

4. I)r-rring thc coursc ol'thc argut'ncnts, Sh. I)ccpak Joon, Counscl forthc appcllant arguccl that thc appcllarrt bcing thc third party was not having any prior knowlcdgc about tl-rc prococdings initiatccl unclcr thc SAI{[AITSI Act by thc rcspondcnts no. I tv 2 and carlc to know about thc procccclings initiatcd undcr Scction l4 ol' thc Sn I{lin l,Sl Act on 04.07.2026.

5. Ilcccntly thc Iligh Court ol'Juclicaturc o1- I{ajasthan bcnch at Jaipur in Writ I)ctition bcarring No. I 57261202(r titlccl as ltishu Chaurlhary V Indian Ovcrscas liank hats <lbscrvcd as undcr :

14. Thc provisions contained undcr Section 17 of thc SAI{FAESI Act and thc limitation prcscribed therc under is rcquircd to bc construcd liberally. The law should not bc harsh against the dcfaulter-borrowcr. In thc case of dcfault in rcpaying thc borrowcd amount to thc bank, thc Ilank itself is the claimant, the judge and the cxecutioner. The only remcdy available to the defaultcr-borrowcr is to approach the DllT by way of filing an application under Scction 17 of the SAIIFAESI Act. To dcny the borrower an opportunity to access or approach the DIIT whilc qucstioning the steps takcn by thc sccured creditor to gct physical possession of thc mortgaged assets, would tantamount to ignoring the Constitutional llight available to him/her undcr Articlc 300A of the Constitution of India. Deferring thc legal access to a stage after hc/shc has heen dispossessed, would rendcr his/hcr rights under Article 300A as meaningless. In thc considered opinion of this Court, evcn after initiation of procedure undcr Sections 13(4)and 14 of the SARFAE,SI Act, pctitioncr has a valid causc of action to move the DltT.

15. In thc considered opinion of this Court, thc DIIA [. instead of rcjecting thc appcal of the pctitioner, on a tcchnical count of dclay in approaching thc DllT and limitation, ought to havc proceeded to dccide thc appcal on its merits. Ilut instcad of doing so, thc appeal has bccn decidcd only on the technicalities, i.e., dclay in (Uploadcd on 1010912026 at 03:58:22 l,M)l [2026:I{.I-JP:361761 (9 of 9) [CW-15726120261approaching the DltT at a bclatcd stage. On this count alone, the impugncd order dated 04.06.2026 passcd by the DIIAT is not found to be sustainablc in thc eycs of law and the same is rcquired to be quashed and sct-aside. Thc appeal, submittcd by thc pctitioncr bcfore thc DllAT, is ordercd to be restorcd and rc- rcgistcrcd to its original number. the thc

6. In vicw ol- thc abovc-t-r'rcntionod judgnrcnt, thc impugncd ordcr datcd 08.09.202(r is sct-asiclc ancl tlrc S. A. bcaring NI)N No.234112026 is rcmandccl bacl< Lo thc l)l{'l'-ll, Chandigarh lbr lrcsh considcration on thc issuc of limitation particularly in thc light ol'thc judgmcnt as rclcrrccl hcrcinabr)vc or any othcr .ir-rdgmcrrt or dccision of'thc Constitutional Court to bc rcfcrrcci by on bchall'of thc appollant.

7. Sh. [)ccpal< Joon, Counscl frrr thc appcllant also praycd that till thc considcration on tlrc issuc of limitation by thc I)lt'l', thc statar-qtto in rcspcct of thc subjcct propcrty bc passccl. 'l'hc said praycr" is opposod by thc Counscl 1<rr tl-rc rcspondcnts nr>. I 8u,2. Sh. I)ccpak Joon, howcvcr, has oould not produccd any noticc statcd to havc bcon issucd cithcr by thc l)istrict Magistratc or Courl Itcccivcr for taking irnrncdiatc posscssion of thc subjcct propcrty. As such thc saicl prayor cannot bc cntcrtainccl a1" this stagc. I Iowcvcr, thc appcllant shall bc a1. libcrty to filc appropriatc application bcl'orc thc I)lt'l'-II, Chandigarh lor sccking protcction of thc subjcct propcrty in casc of altcrccl circumstanccs. tt. 't'hc conccrncd partics arc dircctcd to appcar bcforc thc I)l{'l'-ll, Chandigarh for firrthcr dircctions on 30. 1 0.2026.

9. Copy o1'this ordcr bc scnt to l)l{'l'-ll, Chancligarh lor inlonnation and compliancc.

(l) r. .Iustice Sudhir Kurnar .lain) Chairpcrson t,$