##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

0.07672764401813359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2431 of 2026

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

M/S. ZEN LIFECARE LTD.

Versus THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -I & ORS.

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

Appearance:

DEVANGI B SOLANKI(8888) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. SANDIP N SOLANKI(9119) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

Date : 23/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

[1] By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the legality and validity of (i) the order dated 6^th February 2024 passed in Review Application No. 5 of 2020, and (ii) the order dated 20^th November 2020 passed in Securitisation Application No. 141 of 2016, both rendered by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal–I at Ahmedabad (hereinafter

referred to as “the DRT, Ahmedabad”).

[2] The facts giving rise to the present petition, as culled

out from the record, are stated thus:

Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 02:57:12 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

0.07672764401813359

[2.1] It is the case of the petitioner that its loan account came to be erroneously and prematurely classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 31^st May 2015, allegedly in violation of the

prudential norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India.

[2.2] It is further the case of the petitioner that the demand notice dated 14^th July 2015 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the

SARFAESI Act”) was defective and incomplete.

[2.3] The petitioner submits that a detailed representation/ objection dated 1^st September 2015 was submitted in response to the said notice; however, the respondent Bank failed to consider and respond to the same in compliance with Section 13(3A) of the

SARFAESI Act.

[2.4] It is further alleged that on 9^th October 2015, possession of both movable and immovable secured assets was taken by the Bank without following the due procedure of law, in contravention

Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 02:57:12 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

0.07672764401813359

of Rules 4 and 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,

2002.

[2.5] Thereafter, the Authorized Officer issued a Sale Notice

dated 20th June 2016 for auction of the secured assets.

[2.6] The petitioner states that it submitted a detailed objection dated 4^th July 2016 against the said Sale Notice. Despite this, another show cause notice dated 27^th July 2016 was issued

without adhering to the prescribed procedure.

[2.7] By order dated 8^th August 2016, the objections raised by the petitioner vide communication dated 4th July 2016 came to be

rejected by the Bank.

[2.8] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid actions, the petitioner preferred Securitisation Application No. 141 of 2016 before the

learned DRT, Ahmedabad on 12^th August 2016.

[2.9] The learned DRT, Ahmedabad, by order dated 20^th

November 2020, rejected the said Securitisation Application.

Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 02:57:12 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2431/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026

0.07672764401813359

[2.10] Thereafter, the petitioner filed Review Application No. 5 of 2020 before the learned DRT, Ahmedabad, which also came to

be rejected vide order dated 6^th February 2024.

[2.11] Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner approached the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai by preferring an appeal along