The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act seeking to quash auction notices. The court found statutory notices were validly served via post (deemed service upon refusal) or publication, ruling the application devoid of merits.
Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act dismissed with cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
DRT,PATNA
SA 116 of 2022 [J]
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA
Presiding Officer: Shri KaushalendraYadav
SA-116 of 2022
Versus
--respondents
.Present:
For the Applicant : Dr. Binod Bihari Sinha. Advocate For the respondents Bank : Sh. A.K. Sharan, Advocate
Dated: 19.10.2022
JUDGMENT
"Act was issued. Thereafter, the bank proceed for auction sale of the secured asset by issuing auction sale notice dated 24.03.2022 fixing the date on 29.04.2022 for auction sale of the property. Aggrieved from the sale notice, this SA has been filed by the
2
DRT,PATNA
SA 116 of 2022 [Jl
applicant.
3
SA 116 of 2022 [JJ
DRT,PATNA
Prabhat Khabar and Indian Express. Thereafter, the bank had taken valuation report from its approved valuer of the secured assets and fixed the reserve price. Further, the bank issued auction sale notice dated 24.03.2022 fixing the date on 29.04.2022 for auction sale of the property and sent to the borrowers/guarantors on 25.03.2022 through registered post. The sale notice was pasted on the secured assets and also published In newspapers on 29.03.2022 in Dainik Jagran and Indian Express.
~,#
L
4
DRT,PATNA
SA 116 of 2022 [J]
with the Counter Affidavit of the bank. The demand notice sent to the applicant returned back with postal remarks "Refused". According to General Clause Act, section 27 the refusal to accept the notice, will be deemed to be served upon the applicant. Further, the possession notice was issued on 21.02.2022 and sent to the borrowers including applicant through post but the possession notice sent to the applicant returned back with the postal remarks "Always Door Locked". The possession notice was published in two newspapers namely Prabhat Khabar and Indian Express on 25.02.2022. The possession notice was affixed on the secured assets. Further, the bank issued auction sale notice dated 24.03.2022 fixing the date on 29.04.2022 for auction sale of the property but as per respondent bank, the sale could not be completed in pursuance of sale notice dated 24.3.2022 as no bidder turn up.
ORDER
The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act filed by Vijay Kumar, Slo Late Indra Deo Shah with all pend' l,g..-~~ dismissed with cost. ~ v
~ v t ,~',c: [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts RecoveryTribunal, Patna
Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open co / on this 19THDay of October, 2022. 1)'\ ...;:_ <, _G..'_ [KaushaendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts RecoveryTribunal, Patna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the SARFAESI action taken by the bank violated mandatory service provisions regarding demand and possession notices.
Whether proceeding against notices served to deceased guarantors without substituting legal heirs vitiated the enforcement action.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Vijay Kumar, S/o Late Indra Deo Shah
The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Kankerbagh Branch
Kaushalendra Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
