RAJENDRA VITHAL SHINDE vs BANK OF INDIA on 30 October 2026

**DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)**

**I.A. No. 641/2026(Stay) In Misc. Appeal No. 142/2026**

**Dated: 30.10.2026**

During the morning mentioning hours yesterday, the Petitioners/Appellants sought urgent hearing of the matter. Accordingly, this Tribunal directed the DRAT, Mumbai, to list the matter yesterday, i.e. 29.10.2026 at 2.00 PM, and further directed the Petitioners/Appellants to send the records of this Appeal. The records had not been sent yesterday, therefore, the matter could not be taken up, and again the matter is listed today.

2. Meanwhile, the Petitioners/Appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and filed Writ Petition No. 14837 of 2026 with regard to the physical possession scheduled today and sought stay of the possession scheduled. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, directed this Tribunal to take up this Appeal at 2.00 p.m. for consideration of the prayer for ad-interim/interim order against possession scheduled today.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Securitisation Application No. 382/2023 has been filed to declare that the sale notice dated 01.08.2023 is illegal, arbitrary and to quash and set aside, along with the 13(2) Demand Notice and 13(4) Possession Notice, with other incidental and consequential prayers.

4. It appears that the Petitioners/Appellants filed stay application I.A. No.1989/2026. The Learned Presiding Officer passed a detailed order and disposed the said stay application on the ground that no substantial ground for stay was found, in view of the sale of property for higher price for ₹18.81 crores, above the reserve price of ₹10.31 crores. Against this order, this Appeal is filed.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Respondent No. 1 Bank is trying to take physical possession of the secured asset on the basis of the order obtained under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

6. This Tribunal queried the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants as to whether the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, was challenged before the Tribunal. The answer came in the negative.

7. I have perused the Securitisation Application, and the prayer shows only the challenge to the sale proceedings. Since the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not challenged, the Petitioners/Appellants cannot seek any remedy against the physical possession sought to be taken on the basis of Section 14 order. Therefore, this Tribunal is not inclined to grant any ad-interim /interim stay restraining the physical possession scheduled to be taken today. However, the stay application shall be placed before the Regular Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai, on Monday i.e. 02.11.2026 for further hearing.

MKS-01(SB)

CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)