Meenakshi Goel Vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (DRAT Delhi)
DRAT Upholds Refusal of Interim Relief Against SARFAESI Proceedings, Dismisses Appeal by Third-Party Occupant
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi, first considered the appellant’s application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit required under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The appellant contended that she was neither the borrower, guarantor nor mortgagor and was an independent third party to the loan transaction. Relying on a Delhi High Court decision, the Tribunal held that the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 18 does not apply to an independent third party and accordingly allowed the waiver application.
The appeal arose from an order of DRT-2, Delhi, dismissing the appellant’s application for interim relief in proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The appellant stated that she married respondent No. 2 in 1999 and was residing in the subject property with her three daughters. She relied on orders dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Mahila Court in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and dated 28.09.2024 passed by the Civil Judge restraining respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from dispossessing her from the shared household.
The appellant subsequently learnt that respondent No. 4, a partnership firm of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, had availed a loan of ₹7.5 crore from HDFC Bank on 20.09.2019 by mortgaging the subject property and other movable assets. After default, the bank issued a demand notice dated 19.02.2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act claiming ₹4,20,92,231.87 along with future interest and later issued notices under Section 13(4). The appellant filed a securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the measures taken by the bank. During its pendency, the Chief Judicial Magistrate appointed a receiver under Section 14(2), who issued a possession notice. An interim stay was initially granted by the Link Officer of DRT-2 on 28.11.2025 restraining the bank from taking physical possession while permitting it to proceed against other mortgaged properties. However, DRT-2 later dismissed the appellant’s interim application by order dated 17.04.2026, leading to the present appeal.
