AXIS BANK vs K C SHARMA on 27 October 2026

1. Sh. Harsh Vardhan, Counsel on behalf of respondent stated that the OTS dated 23.10.2026 for amount of Rs.4 crore along with demand draft of Rs.40 lacs as upfront 10% amount is already been submitted to the appellant for consideration. Sh. Dharam Dev, Counsel for appellant on instruction from Sh. Anil Kumar, Senior Manager of the appellant stated that the OTS dated 23.10.2026 is not acceptable to the appellant and the demand draft of Rs.40 lacs shall be returned back to the respondent. At this stage it appears that the settlement may not possible. However, appellant and respondent shall make continue to their sincere efforts for settlement in future.

**Misc. Appeal No. 03/2023**

2. The respondent filed S.A. bearing No. 548/2022 which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi. The respondent being SA application filed I.A. bearing No. 5094/2022 for restoring back of the physical possession of the subject property situated at Pitam Pura. The DRT-I, Delhi vide order dated 30.12.2022 has set aside the possession notice dated 09.11.2022 and directed the appellant to restore the physical possession of the subject property back to the respondent within 10 days. The respondent was also directed to deposit with the appellant 50% of the amount as shown in the demand notice dated 05.12.2019 i.e. Rs. 4,34,51,426/- and the said amount was not deposited by the respondent. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.12.2022 is reproduced as under:

**7. In the present matter, admittedly the borrower has availed the loan facilities from the respondent bank against the mortgage of the property in question. Apparently, there is default on the part of the borrower/guarantor/mortgagor in paying the dues of the respondent bank and as per the respondent bank, notices under Sections 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act have been duly served upon the borrower/mortgagor/ guarantor through all modes and after declaration of the account as NPA, the borrower has not cleared the dues of the respondent bank till date. Apparently, the respondent bank through court receiver has issued the possession notice dated 09.11.2022 against the dead person namely Mr. Ankit Sharma, who has already been expired on 27.06.2022 as per death certificate dated 16.07.2022 issued by the Govt. of Gujarat.**

**8. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the view there is no illegality or irregularity in the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act including notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) and the S. applicant has also not denied about the availment of the loan facility availed by the borrower. However, since the respondent bank through court receiver has issued the possession notice dated 09.11.2022 against the dead person namely Mr. Ankit Sharma, who has already been expired on 27.06.2022 as per death certificate dated 16.07.2022 issued by the Govt. of Gujarat, therefore, the possession notice dated 09.11.2022 is defective. Accordingly, the said possession notice dated 09.11.2022 is hereby set aside and the respondent bank is hereby directed to restore the physical possession of the property in question to the applicant within 10 days from today. However, since the applicant has not denied about the availment of the loan facilities from the respondent bank against the mortgage of the property in question and as per demand notice dated 05.12.2019 more than Rs.4.35 crores is total outstanding and even this Tribunal vide order dated 24.11.2022 has already declined the interim prayer of the applicant, therefore, the applicant is hereby directed to deposit with the respondent bank the 50% of the amount of the demand notice dated 05.12.2019 (demand notice amount is Rs.4,34,51,426/-) within one month from today; failing which the respondent bank through the same court receiver may proceed further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in accordance with law. The applicant is hereby directed to provide the complete details of the legal heirs of the deceased Ankit Sharma to the respondent bank within seven days from today, so that the respondent bank may take further steps as per law.**

**3. The perusal of impugned order reflects that the possession notice dated 09.11.2022 stated to have been served against the dead person namely Ankit Sharma who was already expired before the issuance of possession notice dated 09.11.2022. Sh. Dharam Dev, Counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was not intimated about the fact of the death of Ankit Sharma and when the**

possession notice dated 09.11.2022 was issued at that time the appellant was not having the knowledge about the death of Ankti Sharma. He further stated that the possession of the subject property of Pitam Pura has already been taken but the same is not put to auction and still is in the possession of the appellant. It is also made clear by the respondent who is present in person that residential property situated at Shalimar Bagh is in the possession of the respondent.

4. Sh. Harsh Vardhan, Counsel for the respondent stated that all the proceeding initiated by the appellant under the SARFAESI Act were bad in law and are liable to be set aside.

5. After hearing the respective Counsel for the parties and after giving due consideration to their rival contentions, the present appeal is disposed of with the direction to the DRT-I, Delhi to decide S.A. bearing No. 548/2022 including the passing of the judgment on or before 30.06.2027. In the meantime, till the disposal of the S.A., the parties shall maintain the *status quo* regarding the possession and title in respect of the subject properties as detailed in para 2 of the impugned order dated 30.12.2022. The pending application also disposed of.

----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**

-N