(1) By way of this Special Civil Application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

          "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to stay the implementation and execution of the order dated 24.08.2026 passed by the Respondent No.3 in Cr.M.A. No. 7527 of 2026 (As Annexure:B) and the noticed ated 11.09.2026 issued by the Respondent No.4 Ld. Court Commissioner (As Annexure: B/1), and to restrain the Respondent No.1 Bank and the Respondent No.4 from taking physical possession of the property being Bungalow No.4, Ashwin Co-opertive Housing Society, R.S. No. 277/6 and 278P, T.P. Scheme No. 6, F.P. No. 197, Moje Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007, for a period of two weeks, so as to enable the Petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai against the order dated 25.09.2026 (As Annexure: E) passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ahmedabed in Securitisation Application No. 318 of 2026, in the interest of justice;

          (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to direct the Respondent No.1 Bank and the Respondent No. 4 not to take any coercive steps, including taking physical possession of the aforesaid property, for a period of two weeks from the date of the order of this Hon'ble Court;

          (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to grand ad-interim relief;

          (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to pass such other and further order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

(2) It appears that, in view of certain securities created, to which the present petitioner is a guarantor, proceedings were initiated before the DRT and the same have crossed the stages contemplated under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter, referrred to as "the Act").

(3) The respondent-Bank, the lender had approached the Magisterial Court who was thereafter pleased to pass an order under Section 14 of the Act. As a consequence, in compliance of the orders of the Court, a notice, for taking possession of security assets (2 flats), came to be issued.

(4) Earlier, an attempt had been made by the authorities to take possession; however, possession could not be taken. It is also a fact that proceedings under the Bankruptcy Court have been simultaneously initiated and, as such, the property concerned is now vested in the Bankruptcy Trustee.

(5) Considering the same, the DRT, Ahmedabad vide its order dated 25.09.2026, was not inclined to protect the petitioner from the impending taking over possession under Section 14 of the Act.

(6) Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the peitioner has already approached the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay and that the appellate proceedings have indeed been filed on 30.09.2026. However, he apprehends that the matter may not be listed after completion of the statutory scrutiny requirements and, therefore, no order would be passed before 04.10.2026, whereby the possession is likely to be taken in terms of the notice issued by the Court Commissioner and Assistant Superintendent appointed by the Magisterial Court.

(7) It was thus, submitted that the petitioner may be protected or else the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay would be frustrated and would be rendered infructuous the learned advocate for the Respondent no. 1-ICICI Bank has vehemently objected and has submitted that the present proceedings are only attempt stall, delay and frustrate the proceedings. It was submitted that the petitioner does not have any legal right and in any case, without depositing of 50% of amount before the Tribunal, they cannot agitate their claims. It was also submitted that even before the DRT, Ahmedabad they had only indicated that they would be willing to pay amount to the tune of 5% on 27.09.2026 and an additional 10% within a period of 4 weeks, which in no way even meets the minimum stautory requirements.

(8) However, under instructions of his clients, the learned advocate Mr.Ritesh D Patadia has submitted that the clients willing to deposit with the Court a sum to the extent of 25 % of the total outstanding dues. The dues he submitted is to the extent of Rs. 4,66,07,723.49/- as on 24.09.2026.

(9) In view of the foregoing, this Court, notwithstanding the vehement objections by the learned advocate by the Respondent no.1, is inclined to protect the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing before this court by Monday, i.e., 05.10.2026, the sum to the tune of 25% of Rs. 4,66,07,723.49/-. Subject to such deposit, the relief in terms of paragraph 12(B) of the prayer clause is granted, with a caveat that in case of failure to deposit the amount by 05.10.2026, the relief shall stand vacated.

(10) The parties before this Court shall take steps in coordination with the registry of this court to transfer the aforesaid amount to the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay from 06.10.2026.

(11) It is needless to add that the Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the respondent-bank and that the proceedings shall be adjudicated before the appropriate forum strictly in accordance with merits and in accordance with law. The Special Civil Application having been allowed to the aforesaid extent, is disposed of. Direct Service is permitted.