On March 13, 2024, the court had directed Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to hand over possession of the secured asset to the Petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), on March 20, 2024. This directive was based on a statement made in court by Respondent No. 4, who was present during the proceedings.

However, when the matter was revisited, the auction purchaser raised concerns. They reported that, despite the transfer of possession, there was an apprehension that the Petitioner-NBFC might refuse to hand over possession to them. The borrowers had provided a letter indicating that possession was given to the Petitioner-NBFC under the condition that it would not transfer the asset to anyone else.

During the hearing, the court sought clarification from the Petitioner-NBFC’s authorized officer regarding the possession situation. The officer revealed that he had been compelled to accept the letter from the borrowers, which included the controversial condition, amid significant pressure from local political figures and a crowd.

Despite this pressure, the officer maintained that the Petitioner-NBFC only acknowledged the letter without agreeing to the conditions outlined therein, as no such stipulation was included in the court's previous order.

The court reviewed the letter dated March 20, 2024, along with an inventory and panchanama prepared by the borrower. It noted that since the secured asset had already been sold to the successful auction purchaser, and no stay had been issued, the Petitioner-NBFC was obligated to comply with the court’s earlier order and hand over possession.

The court ordered that possession of the secured asset must be transferred to the successful auction purchaser by March 23, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. The judge expressed frustration over the borrowers’ attempts to impose conditions that contradicted the court’s explicit directives, stating that such behavior cannot be tolerated.

The ruling also addressed concerns about borrowers exerting extra-judicial pressure, noting a previous incident where borrowers had unlawfully re-entered the secured asset, leading to a First Information Report against them.

In light of these developments, the court summoned the borrowers, along with their legal representatives, to appear on the next hearing date. They are required to explain their actions and why they should not face contempt charges for attempting to circumvent court orders. The court warned that failure to appear could result in the issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrants.

The case is scheduled for further proceedings on March 28, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. This ruling underscores the court's commitment to upholding legal processes and deterring any attempts to undermine judicial authority.