Dismissed

Sh Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Punjab National Bank

DRT11 Oct 2023SA/47/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Securitization Application challenging bank notices for possession was dismissed as time-barred, holding that the applicants abandoned their prior suit by failing to restore it after default dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as time-barred; right to physical possession restrained against the Bank.

Sh Pawan Kumar Sharma versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

SA No.47/2023

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No.47 of 2023 Pawan Kumar Sharma and another Versus Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank

¶4

11.10.2023 Item No.71

¶5

Present: Sh.Rohit Suri, Counsel for the Applicants. Sh.Bhushan Bhatia, Counsel for respondent Bank.

¶6

Pawan Kumar Sharma and his wife Manju Sharma (Applicants) have filed the present Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, against Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank (Respondent).

¶7

Admittedly, applicants had taken three Home Loans from Punjab National Bank. The first loan of Rs.1.03 crores, was taken in the year 2016. Applicants also availed two other Home Loans of Rs.50 lacs and Rs.15 lacs in the year 2018. All these loans were Term Loans and were repayable in installments. Apart from this, Pawan Kumar Sharma, applicant had taken a CC Limit of Rs.6 crores from Punjab National Bank in respect of his firm namely M/s Kanhiya Industries, of which applicant No.1 is proprietor. Apart from that, PNB had advanced a loan of Rs.12 crores to M/s Raghav Industries. In that loan applicant No.1 was the guarantor. It is admitted that PNB has filed OA in respect of the account of M/s Kanhiya Industries as well as of M/s Raghav Industries, for the recovery of its dues.

¶8

Admittedly, applicants had earlier filed SA No.264/2022 against the Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, wherein they had challenged the demand notice dated 12.07.2022 issued under Section 13(2); possession notice dated 19.09.2022 and the order of District Magistrate, dated 19.11.2022. In SA No.264/2022, on 21.01.2023, this Tribunal had ordered that applicants would appear in person and Mr.Bhatia, counsel for respondent Bank would also apprise the complete facts to this Tribunal. The case was accordingly adjourned to 23.01.2023. However, on 23.01.2023, neither the applicants nor their counsel put in appearance and SA No.264/2022 was dismissed in default by this Tribunal. Later on, on 23.01.2023, after the passing of the order, Mr.Sushant Kareer,

¶9

SA No.47/2023

¶10

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶11

counsel for the applicants put in appearance and stated that he was held up in some other court and stated that he would move an application for restoration. However, no restoration application has been filed by the applicants till date. With this background, I come to the present SA.

¶12

In the present SA, apart from challenging the proceedings, which the applicants had already challenged in SA No.264/2022, have challenged the notice dated 16.01.2023 issued by the Bank for taking over the physical possession of the residential house, which is the secured asset in the present case.

¶13

The authorized officer, in the reply to the SA, has denied the facts mentioned in the application.

¶14

I have heard Mr.Rohit Suri, counsel for the applicants and Mr.Bhushan Bhatia, Counsel for respondent bank.

¶15

Mr.Suri, counsel for the applicants has argued that on the date the notice under Section 13(2) was issued, the account of the applicants was not NPA. Since, the account was not NPA, the Bank was not justified in issuing the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. He further argued that the notice issued under Section 13(2) is also bad in the eye of the law. The Bank has now issued a notice for taking over the physical possession of the residential house. Since, his account was not NPA on the date, when the notice under Section 13(2) was issued, the Bank be restrained from taking the physical possession. Mr.Suri argued that in the notice under Section 13(2) there is no reference to the other accounts of M/s Kanhiya Industries and M/s Raghav Industries. He further argued that in the earlier SA there was no adjudication on merits. Accordingly, any order passed in that SA, is of no consequence. He further argued that even after getting the notice under Section 13(2), applicants have deposited Rs.24 lacs to the Bank and at present a sum of Rs.12 lacs is overdue, which the applicants are ready to pay. Accordingly, the Bank be restrained from taking the physical possession of the residential house.

¶16

8. Per contra , Mr.Bhushan Bhatia, counsel for authorized officer, PNB has argued that not only the money is due in other accounts, this loan account was

¶17

SA No.47/2023

¶18

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶19

rightly declared NPA. Applicants owe a lot of money to the Bank and two OAs are also pending against the applicants, namely in respect of the accounts of M/s Kanhiya Industries and M/s Raghav Industries, in which the applicant No.1 is proprietor as well as guarantor and these two accounts have also been declared NPA as per RBI guidelines. He further argued that applicants had earlier filed SA No.264/2022. However, they abandoned the same and by filing the present SA, applicants want to bypass the order passed in SA No.264/2022 on 23.01.2023. Mr.Bhatia submitted that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶20

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶21

Admittedly, applicants had earlier moved SA No.264/2022, which was dismissed in default on 23.01.2023. Though, counsel for the applicant had made a statement on 23.01.2023 that he would file application for restoration, yet, no restoration application was filed. This shows that applicants had abandoned SA No.264/2022 and filed the preset SA on the same grounds, on which applicants had filed SA No.264/2022. Since, applicants had earlier abandoned SA No.264/2022, I am of the considered view that they are not entitled to any relief on the same grounds now in this SA. Mr.Suri, counsel for the applicant time and again pointed out that the earlier SA was not disposed of on merits but was dismissed in default. Be that as it may, the present SA was filed on 07.02.2023 wherein the applicants have challenged the demand notice dated 12.07.2022; possession notice dated 19.09.2022 and order of District Magistrate dated 19.11.2022. The present SA is timed barred. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed .

¶22

All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶23

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶24

Pronounced in open court. MANOJ/11.10.2023

Sh Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uco Bank versus Messers B K J Enterprise

Punjab National Bank versus M/S M S Hardware

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajay Devanand Gadpayle

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Bhawani International

State Bank of India versus Sh. Karam Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Joshi International