IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17572 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17572 of 2025 ==========================================================

HIMANSHU ENGINEERING PROPRITARY FIRM THROUGH PROP. KRISH HIMANSHUBHAI VARIA & ORS.

Versus THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK ARM BRANCH & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR R S SANJANWALA, SR. COUNSEL with MR DHRUMITSINH D CHAUHAN(11200) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 MR PARTH S BRAHMBHATT(8909) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 MR VISHWAS K SHAH(5364) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 19/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are praying for an appropriate direction to stay the notice issued for taking physical possession of the secured property scheduled on 21.12.2025 pursuant to the order dated 01.12.2025 read with the order dated 05.04.2025 passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that by the order dated 02.09.2025, the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad has rejected the prayer for interim relief made by the petitioners. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Misc. Appeal Diary No.1413 of 2025 before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. By the order dated 16.09.2025, the Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, who is In-charge of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit 40% of the outstanding amount, i.e. Rs.1,05,03,422/-. The learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai has also observed that if the said amount is deposited, the auction purchasers are restrained from alienating the secured asset, creating encumbrance, lease, transfer etc. till the next date of hearing. It is submitted that the petitioners have paid the said amount. Further, the Tribunal found from the prayer that no amendment was carried out with regard to measures taken for taking possession and therefore, it was observed that no order can be passed against the Bank in so far as taking possession is concerned. However, it was directed that the petitioners are at liberty to move the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad for appropriate relief on making proper amendment with regard to the measures taken for possession. By the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad has rejected the said stay application of the petitioners from taking over of the physical possession of the property in question on 21.12.2025.

3. The learned senior counsel Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have deposited Rs.3.34 crores with the respondent Bank out of Rs.4.03 crores as per the demand notice dated 22.10.2024. The learned senior counsel submits that since the order was passed on 18.12.2025 and the same was made available in the evening, the petitioners have filed the present Special Civil Application in the morning and sought circulation of the same for urgent interim relief. This Court granted the circulation and the Special Civil Application is taken up for hearing. He submits that the petitioners may be granted some time to approach the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners have already deposited Rs.3.34 crores out of Rs.4.03 crores and further, the auction purchasers are restrained from alienating the secured asset, creating encumbrance, lease, transfer etc. till the next date of hearing. He submits that no prejudice will be caused to the Bank if an opportunity is granted to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 18.12.2025. He, therefore, submits that in the interest of justice, so