Punjab National Bank v. Amzad Hussain

Appeal Dy. No. 555/2022 Date: 01.11.2023

Punjab National Bank Vs. Amzad Hussain

Present: Shri S. K. Pandey, counsel for the appellant, Shri Anuj Mandhyan, counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, None for the respondent no. 3, Shri Shashank Johri, respondent no. 4- In person

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

It is contended that the sale has been set aside merely on the ground that the sale notice was given less than 15 days, therefore, statutory requirement has not been fulfilled. It is further contended that information was sought for under the RTI Act from the postal department with regard to the service of sale notice upon the borrower and a report dated 11.08.2022 from the postal department has been received, which is placed at page no. 117 to 120 of the paper book. The said report reflects that the sale notice was served on 02.05.2022, hence a clear 15 days’ notice was given by the Bank, therefore, the ground of setting aside the sale is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that the respondent-Borrower does not have any right of redemption after publication of sale notice as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543/2023 - CELIR LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and others, decided on 21.09.2023.

Learned counsel for the respondent-borrower states that when the right of redemption was claimed by the borrower, the sale was already set aside, therefore, it cannot be said that the redemption sought by the borrower was after publication of the sale notice or confirmation of sale, whereas the entire amount has been deposited by the borrower pursuant to the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by this

Tribunal. However, he needs some time to prepare the matter and argue the case.