NIRAJ KUMAR TIWARI vs IDFC FIRST BANK LTD on 30 October 2026

Exh-7

<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="251 74 398 116">30.10.2026</th><th data-bbox="398 74 881 116">MA/ 55 /2026</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td data-bbox="251 116 398 916">PRESENT</td><td data-bbox="398 116 881 916"><p>Mr. Biju Nair, Id. counsel for applicant<br/>Mr. L.M. Patel, Id. counsel for respondent bank who has filed vakalatnama – Ex. R/5. Let it be kept on record.</p><p>Ld. counsel for the applicant has submitted that, this is the second round of litigation, in this case, SA No. 58/2026 filed by the applicant with regard to the same loan was finally decided by this Tribunal vide final order dated 30.01.2026 by giving relief to the applicant to pay the overdue amount in a phased manner and regularise his loan account, but, due to some unavoidable circumstances the applicant has not been able to comply with part of the order as a result of which an amount of more than Rs. 3.00 crores which was to be paid by the applicant to the respondent till 30.09.2026, has not been paid yet.</p><p>Ld. counsel for the applicant has made a very sentimental appeal stating that one of the two secured assets located at Surat being residential premises, the applicant resides there with his kids and if interim protection is not being granted they will be displaced before Dipavali festival. He has further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to handover peaceful possession of the secured property situated at NOIDA and to retain possession of the second property situated at Surat the applicant is ready to pay certain amount to the respondent bank as directed by this Tribunal in phased manner and on these grounds further interim protection was prayed to be granted.</p><p>Nair/7</p></td></tr></tbody></table>

Ld. counsel for the respondent very vehemently opposed this proposal of the applicant and has filed purshis – Ex. R/6 inter alia stating the response of the respondent bank with regard to the application of the applicant. The first and foremost objection raised by Id. counsel for the respondent is that the applicant has defaulted previous order 30.01.2026 passed by this Tribunal wherein waiver clause has been stipulated meaning thereby that the reliefs granted by final order dated 30.01.2026 are subject to waiver of all rights of the applicant to file a fresh application on any ground shown in this SA and that clause is being deliberately violated by the applicant. It has been further submitted that request of the applicant to handover peaceful possession of the NOIDA property is not bona fide as the applicant has already sold out that property to somebody else and that party has sold the property to a third party and the defrauded third party has filed FIR against the applicant, a copy of which has been annexed to Ex. R/6. He has further submitted that even in respect of the property situated at Surat it has been acquired by the applicant fraudulently cheating and duping a third party.

In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, Id. counsel for the respondent has submitted that the applicant deserves no further indulgence of this Tribunal and it has been prayed that the request of the applicant deserves to be denied and respondent deserves to be given free hand to proceed against the applicant in accordance with law for recovery of huge default to the tune of more than Rs. 3.00 crores.

I have heard both the Id. counsels and perused the record. With a very heavy heart, this Tribunal is not in a position to appreciate and grant relief on the basis of sentimental arguments of the Id. counsel for applicant. It is an admitted fact that in SA No 58/2026 order dated 30.01.2026 was passed on the basis of a voluntary written undertaking filed by the applicant and in the said final order dated 30.01.2026 this Tribunal has explicitly recorded that by filing this undertaking the applicant has waived all his rights with regard to any of the grounds raised in this SA and he will not be permitted to challenge the actions taken by the Respondent bank, in case of default and this order will apply as resjudicata for any subsequent SA with same cause of action.

Under these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that if such type of undertakings are encouraged this Tribunal will have to face such applications on daily basis from all the borrowers.

In given circumstances this Tribunal is of the opinion that there is no ground to entertain the instant MA.

Accordingly, MA No. 55/2026 being devoid of merits is hereby rejected.

Let the records be consigned.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER,** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD.** **30.10.2026**