Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Divya Tatiya

DRAT23 Jun 2025REGULAR APPEAL/131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the bank's appeal against the DRT's order in a securitization application dispute. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on additional evidence, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the DRT, directing a fresh hearing and allowing respondents to file evidence in rebuttal.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the learned DRT to decide the Securitization Application afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to parties including filing rebuttal evidence.

Punjab National Bank versus Divya Tatiya — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA (CAMP AT DRT, HYDERABAD)

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

Regular Appeal No.131 of 2024

¶5

(Arising out of SA No.1263 of 2017 in DRT-2, Hyderabad)

¶6

Punjab National Bank

¶7

Represented by its Authorized Officer Sanathnagar Branch, Deccan Chambers Opposite Telephone Exchange, Erragadda Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-500018

¶8

…….Appellant

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

Ms.Divya Tatiya D/o Late Kesari Chand Tatiya H.No.7-1-31, Suguna Apartments 1^st Floor, Leela Nagar, Begumpet Hyderabad-500016

¶11

Ms. Tarun Tatiya D/o Late Kesari Chand Tatiya H.No.7-1-31, Suguna Apartments 1^st Floor, Leela Nagar, Begumpet Hyderabad-500016

¶12

Master Namit S/o Late Kesari Chand Tatiya H.No.7-1-31, Suguna Apartments 1^st Floor, Leela Nagar, Begumpet Hyderabad-500016

¶13

………Respondents

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Appellant … Mr. Nemani Srinivas Learned Counsel for Respondents … Mr.P. Nanda Kishore

¶15

JUDGMENT : 23^RD JUNE, 2025

¶16

The Appellate Tribunal :

¶17

Instant appeal has arisen against the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Learned DRT-2, Hyderabad in SA No.1263 of 2017 whereby the learned DRT allowed the Securitization Application filed under Sec.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by setting aside the demand notice and possession notice. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant Bank has preferred the Appeal.

¶18

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

The Securitization Application was filed by the respondents herein on the ground that the respondents who were applicants before the learned DRT are children of one Kesari Chand Tatiya and Usha Tatiya who availed the loan facility from the Bank after creating mortgage on the secured assets. Their parents died on 07.10.2006 and 14.02.2009 thereby creating rights in favour of the respondents on the secured asset. Demand notice dated 09.03.2017 was issued. Thereafter possession notice was also issued on 11.05.2017. Account was classified as NPA on 31.08.2009. The Securitization action taken by the Bank was challenged by the respondents herein by filing SA No.1263 of 2017 on the ground that the notice under Sec.13(2) dated 28.08.2013 was time-barred. Earlier sale notice was withdrawn. Bank filed the response with the assertion that all the steps as required under law were taken by the Bank. Learned DRT allowed the Securitization Application on the ground that on the date of agreement of loan dated 25.02.2003 creation of mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds was yet to take place hence there was no security agreement as defined under Sec.2(1)(zb) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, it was held that without creation of valid security interest all further action undertaken by the Bank became infructuous, possession notice was also null and void.

¶21

Pending Appeal, an IA is filed by the Appellant Bank annexing certain documents, copies of the same are duly served upon the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the Appellant Bank has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court (i) Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 247 and (ii) State of Karnataka vs. M.A. Mohamad Sanaulla and Another reported in (2022) 17 Supreme Court Cases 301 wherein it was held that the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The additional evidence filed by the Bank has been taken on record wherein the learned counsel for respondents has prayed for right to rebuttal. As has been held in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.A. Mohamad Sanulla (supra) , additional evidence is to be taken on record and the respondents have the right to rebuttal. Since additional evidence is taken on record, it goes to the root of the matter hence the respondents should be given an opportunity to file evidence-in-rebuttal.

¶22

Since the additional evidence is taken on record and that issue is to be reconsidered, hence it would be in the interest of justice that the matter should be remanded back to the learned DRT to decide it afresh after giving opportunity to the parties. Accordingly Appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Appeal is allowed. Matter is remanded back to the learned DRT with a direction to decide it afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Respondents herein should be given an opportunity to file evidencein-rebuttal. Learned DRT should decide the SA expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶26

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant Bank and the Respondents and a copy also be forwarded to the concerned DRT and uploaded in the official website.

¶27

File be consigned to Record room.

¶28

Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

Punjab National Bank v. Divya Tatiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Divya Tatiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Zarina Parveen Mohammed Abdul Aziz versus Piramal Capital and Housing finance Limited

Bank of India versus M S S M Enterprises

Manojit Sharma versus Punjab National Bank

M/s. vaishnavi Trading India Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

neelam enterprises versus Bank of India

Rbl Bank Limited versus M/s Chamundi Construction