High Court of Gujarat
CHANDRAPALSINH BHUPENDRASINHJI CHAUHANversusSAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED
- Disposal
- 35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- NIRAL R MEHTA
Holding
The High Court stayed the DRT's possession order until 2 April 2026 and directed the petitioner to approach the DRAT within three weeks, without entertaining the merits of the case.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandrapalsinh Bhupendrasinhji Chauhan, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 227 seeking to quash an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) that authorized possession of his flat. He argued that the DRT's notice to take physical possession, dated 14 March 2026, would leave him remediless before he could file an appeal with the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in Mumbai. The respondent, Sammaan Capital Limited, consented to a 21‑day stay of possession but requested no further extensions if the appeal was not filed. The High Court, finding the respondent's approach reasonable, granted a temporary stay of possession until 2 April 2026 and directed the petitioner to file his appeal with the DRAT within three weeks, emphasizing that no further indulgence would be granted. The court disposed of the petition after issuing these interim directions without delving into the merits of the underlying dispute.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can stay the DRT's order of possession pending appeal before the DRAT under Article 227.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent and the Court Commissioner from taking possession of the property.
- Whether the court may limit the period of stay to three weeks without further extensions.
Subjects
Article 227judicial reviewinterim reliefstay of possessionDebt Recovery TribunalDebt Recovery Appellate Tribunalspecial civil applicationhigh court order
Judgment
C/SCA/3827/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3827 of 2026
==========================================================
CHANDRAPALSINH BHUPENDRASINHJI CHAUHAN
Versus
SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SANDIP N SOLANKI(9119) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CZ SANKHLA(3243) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ISHAN JOSHI for the Respondent(s) No. 2, 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 13/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of the India, the
petitioner has approached this Court with the
following reliefs.
A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow
the petition; AND
B. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased issue writ of
certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari or any
other write order or direction and be pleased
to quash and set aside the orders dated
12.03.2026 passed by the Ld. DRT - I, Ahmedabad
in S.A. No.577/2023 [Produce at Annexure-A];
AND,
C. YOUR LORDSHIP, may be pleased to direct the
Respondent No. 1-F.I. and the Court
Commissioner not to take physical possession of
the secured asset i.e. Flat No.AC/1, 1st Floor,
Tower – C, Admeasuring 3875 Sq.Ft. Of ‘Utopoan
Corner’ situated in Land Bearing S.
No.692,693,694/2,695/1, T.P. No.2, F.P. No.81
F.P. No.82,85,86 and 87 of Village Aakodia, New
Alkapuri, Ta.Dist. Vadodara till pending and
final disposal of Petition; AND,
D. YOUR LORDSHIP, may be please to grant ad-
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/3827/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
interim relied in term of para 9(c), pending
and final disposal of petition, in the interest
of Justice; AND,
E. YOUR LORDSHIP, restrain the Respondent FI from
taking any coercive action till the interim
application is heard and decide by the Hon’ble
DRAT, Mumbai.
F. Any other and further relief or reliefs which
this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of
justice and equity in the Favor of the
Petitioner.”
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandip Solanki
for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.C.Z.
Sankla for respondent No.1.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner is challenging order
dated 12th March, 2026 passed by DRT–II, Ahmedabad
in S.A. No.577 of 2023. It is further submitted
that the Petitioner has received a notice from
the Court Commissioner for taking possession of
the property on 14th March, 2026. He also
submitted that as per the procedure, physical
documents are also required to be filed before
the Registry over and above filing of Appeal
online and in that event, some time is likely to
be consumed; however, learned advocate for the
petitioner, in the interregnum period, apprehends
that respondent No.1 is likely to take possession
of the property as per the notice received by the
petitioner. Thus, learned advocate for the
petitioner submitted that in that eventuality, if
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/3827/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
the indulgence is not shown by this Court,
petitioner will be left remediless.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Sankla, learned
advocate for the respondent No.1, fairly conceded
that keeping in mind the principle of fair play,
respondent No.1 shall not take the possession of
the subject property of the petitioner for a
period 21 days from today. However, Mr.Sankla
requested that if in the meantime, the petitioner
fail to get any order from the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, no further indulgence
by way of any extension of time, be granted.
5. Request and the approach of Mr.Sankla
appears to be reasonable and fair.
6. In view of above, the present petition
deserves to be disposed of, without much entering
into the merits of the case, with the following
directions:
(i) The petitioner is hereby directed to
approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai as expeditiously as possible by following
and complying all the formalities, so that
effective hearing of the Appeal may take place by
the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai.
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/3827/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
(ii) The said exercise shall have to be
completed by the petitioner within a period of
three weeks from today so that learned Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai can pass
appropriate orders.
(iii) It is, however, clarified that the
indulgence granted by this Court is purely on the
ground of conveniency and thereby, needless to
clarify that there shall not be any further
indulgence by this Court.
(iv) Respondent No.1 as well as Court
Commissioner shall not take possession of the
property of the petitioner till 02nd April, 2026
i.e. three weeks from today.
7. With aforesaid observations and
directions, present petition stands disposed of.
Direct service is permitted, today.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
ANUP
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUP VYOMESH PARIKH(HC00956), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/03/2026 17:37:25
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 227"Sign in to search