Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 17-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.27844‑27845/2026 arise from the impugned final judgment and order dated 08‑06‑2026 in WP No. 2851/2026 & WP No. 3233/2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
  • Parties: Petitioner – Pradeep Gordhandas Vora (original borrower); Respondents – AlouKik Construwell LLP & another.
  • Background: The borrower’s loan account was declared a Non‑Performing Asset (NPA). SARFAESI proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The secured asset was auctioned by the bank in 2025; the respondent’s client, represented by Senior Counsel Neeraj Kishan Kaul, placed a bid of Rs 120 Crore, which was accepted, giving the sale finality.
  • Post‑auction, the petitioner filed an application under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) seeking condonation of delay; the DRT declined. An appeal was filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which entertained the appeal without demanding a pre‑deposit as required by Section 18 of SARFAESI. The DRAT order was not favoured by the High Court, leading to the present petitions.
  • The Supreme Court, after hearing senior counsel for both sides, held that the High Court committed no error of fact or law in its common impugned judgment and order.

Final Outcome

  • The petitioner’s liability as of the auction date was Rs 46 Crore. The bank recovered Rs 120 Crore, resulting in a surplus of Rs 74 Crore.
  • The Court directed that the surplus amount of Rs 74 Crore be disbursed to the petitioner within four weeks from the order date.
  • The bank’s senior counsel, Gopal Jain, indicated that the surplus is secured by a fixed deposit; any other property of the petitioner attached by the bank must be released immediately if not already done.
  • All proceedings before the DRT or DRAT, if any, are deemed closed.
  • The question of law concerning the interpretation of the Second Proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is left open for future determination.
  • The parties may approach the Court again if any further difficulty arises.
  • The petitions and any pending applications are disposed of.

Topics: Court Order, SARFAESI Auction, Surplus Disbursement