Anil Kumar v. Punjab National Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
In a Section 31 application challenging a bank's SARFAESI action, the Tribunal held that a notice merely informing of intended possession issued on September 28, 2022, did not satisfy Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the Court determined the application was premature.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATNA Order with the Signature of the Court
Date of order or proceeding
Office action taken with data
07.02.2023
SA 353 of2022
Ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the applicant without following the procedure required under the SARFAESI Act and Rules. Ld. counsel for the respondent bank submits that no possession notice has been issued by the respondent bank sofar. The applicant has filed premature application. On the perusal of annexure-3 as notice dated 28.9.2022 issued to the applicant on behalf of the respondent bank vide which applicant has been called upon to deliver the possession of secured assets failing which the respondent bank will take possession of the secured assets on 10.10.2022. So it is not Possession notice as required uls 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It is simply information of notice for intended possession which could not revise the cause of action to the applicant for filing the S. application. Accordingly, the present S. application is premature. Order to be uploaded on the Tribunal's website V Patna (Kaushalendra Yadav Presiding Officer
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Notice dated 28.9.2022 issuing information of intended possession satisfies the definition of a 'Notice' under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether an application challenging such a notice is maintainable when it is deemed premature due to lack of requisite cause of action.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Applicant
- respondent
Respondent Bank
Coram
Kaushalendra Yadav
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court