Disposed

Satwic Jeewanshala v. Punjab National Bank

DRT3 Feb 2023SA/74/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal disposed of a securitization application challenging an auction notice that was subsequently withdrawn by the bank. The court held the prayer infructuous and directed the bank to verify property boundaries via revenue authorities before taking possession under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The auction notice prayer was declared infructuous due to its withdrawal; the respondent bank was directed to verify mortgaged property boundaries through Revenue Authorities before proceeding with ph

Satwic Jeewanshala versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA/74/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.- 74/2022

¶5

SATWIC JEEWANSHALA TRUST

¶6

Through its Chairman Sh. Seesh Ram Ranwa, Plot No. 121, K-5, K-5 Scheme, Green Park, Khatipura, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

………Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,

¶10

Circle Sastra Centre, Jaipur – Dausa, Circle Office Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302015

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

Counsel –

¶13

Sh. Akarsh Mathur , Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Sh. K.M. Mathur, Ld. counsel for Respondent Bank

¶15

(Final Order)

¶16

(03.02.2023)

¶17

This Securitization Applicant was filed on 16.02.2022.

¶18

Availing credit facility by SA Applicant being a Charitable Trust is admitted and mortgage of property, as detailed in para 5.5 of the SA is also admitted.

¶19

As per Demand Notice dt. 02.09.2014 (Annexure1) was issued and account was declared as NPA.

¶20

It is claimed in para 5.9 of the SA that symbolic possession was taken on 16.06.2015, without complying provisions of SARFAESI Act & Rules of 2002, Notice is at Annexure-2.

¶21

It is also claimed in para 5.11 to the SA, that through Letter dt. 08.03.2021 (Annexure-4) Respondent Bank offered OTS, to SA Applicant.

¶22

¶23

SA/74/2022

¶24

In para 5.14 of the SA, it is submitted that the Applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 3.50 Lac on account of ongoing settlement talks but the Respondent did not considered the OTS proposal filed by the Applicant time to time.

¶25

Later on Auction Notice was published in daily newspapers on 21.01.2022 but the fact is that auctions so initiated resulted into failure and subject property, is in possession of SA Applicant as an order of status quo passed by this Tribunal is in progress.

¶26

So, the grounds of the SA at para ‘c’, ‘d’, ‘e’, ‘f’, ‘g’ do not require any consideration.

¶27

Reply to the SA was filed by the Respondent Bank on 24.02.2021 and as per reply, it is claimed by the Respondent Bank, that despite giving sufficient opportunities the Applicant failed to approach with a suitable proposal of OTS at all the time Applicant is passing time only on the count of settlement and the Applicant, himself gave various assurances to deposit the amount through Letters filed at Annexure-R/5 & R/6.

¶28

Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank strongly objected the prayer of SA Applicant and argued that the actions, initiated by Respondent Bank are as per law and Auction Notice, under challenge, was withdrawn by the Respondent Bank, so as of now no auction is scheduled and the SA Applicant is not at all interested in repayment, rather, they are trying to take undue benefit of term OTS and various offer of settlement given by them, resulted into failure

¶29

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶30

In this matter, against the borrower, Respondent Bank filed an OA No. 233/2015, and as per this OA, the account was declared as NPA on 31.12.2012 . In the said OA, proceedings of the OA, remained pending on account of uncertaintity of status of mortgaged property and the Applicant

¶31

¶32

SA/74/2022

¶33

Bank moved an IA No. 21/2020 with a prayer to direct the Revenue Authorities to file report with regard to physical status of the land. From the perusal of said IA No 21/2020, it is clear that the some where, the Bank, itself was not sure about the boundries of mortgaged property. For ready reference, prayer of the IA are reproduced hereunder –

¶34

“Thus in the light of the above facts and circumstances an order may kindly be passed directing the Tehsildar/Patwari to make available the map of the said property in possession of the borrower from their records or direct the borrower to provide the map related to the entire land which is in their possession so that the map can be prepared of the land as if stands as on date.”

¶35

Now, if we go by the incidents following facts are clear –

¶36

The account was declared as NPA on 31.12.2012.

¶37

OA was filed on 15.07.2015.

¶38

Demand Notice was issued on 02.09.2014.

¶39

Symbolic Possession was taken on 16.06.2015.

¶40

Respondent Bank, initiated Auction proceedings on 20.01.2022.

¶41

Auction Notice dt. 20.01.2022 was withdrawn.

¶42

From the above details, is clear that the Bank

¶43

issued Demand Notice in September 2014 but till January, 2022 i.e. for a period of 7 years no proceedings, with regard to recovery of amount was initiated by the Bank, and this fact, might be a reason that settlement/OTS talks might be in progress but it is not at all expected from a Secured Creditor having claim of Rs. 13.47 Crore to wait for a period of more then 7 yers time, only on the ground of settlement/OTS. From tthis delay also, it is clear that the Respondent Bank was also responsible in delaying the recovery proceedings.

¶44

¶45

SA/74/2022

¶46

From perusal of para 5.11 to 5.18 of the SA, it is clear, that the OTS/Settlement talks were in progress and Applicant deposited an amount of more than Rs. 3.50 Crore and Rs. 85,00,000/-.

¶47

In the grounds of Appeal running from ground ‘a’ to ‘h’ the Applicant has challenged only the Auction Notice dt. 20.01.2022 on account of various illegalities but, its a fact that as the Auction Notice dt. 20.01.2022, was withdrawn by the Bank and no reason was explained by the Respondent Bank beind the withdrawal of said Auction Notice dt. 21.08.2022.

¶48

Entire prayer of this SA, is related to Auction Notice dt. 20.01.2022, which was withdrawn by the Respondent Bank itself, so the prayer is now infructuous as rightly pointed out by Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank.

¶49

Further, as per Limitation Clause, knowledge is claimed from the Auction Notice dt. 20.01.2022 and receiving of Demand Notice dt. 02.09.2014, is also admitted in para 5.8 of the SA.

¶50

Further, there is nothing challenged with regard to either Demand Notice dt. 02.09.20214 or Possession Notice dt. 16.06.2015, so, nothing can be commented on the validity/legality of these two notice.

¶51

In the rejoinder to the reply, filed by the Applicant on 07.06.2022 is on record and in para 3 to 8, various grounds are taken by SA Applicant with regard to Demand Notice and Possession Notice but the same can not be taken into consideration as ther is nothing in SA, but as rightly pointed out in para 11, the Authorized Officer of the Bank, is not authorized/entitled to get physical possession directly as the same is to be taken by Ld. District Magistrate/Ld. CMM, as the case may be either directly or through their subordinate officer. So, in my considered opinion, the Authorized Officer, is not entitled to take physical possession of the

¶52

¶53

SA/74/2022

¶54

subject mortgaged property and the Respondent Bank is always at liberty to approach Ld. District Magistrate/Ld. CMM by filing an appropriate application U/s 14 of the Act of 2002. The Respondent Bank is also directed to verify the boundries of the mortgaged property from the Revenue Authorities and then only, to proceed for taking physical possession, in Order to avoid further litigation.

¶55

With these observations SA, stands disposed of as infructuous.

¶56

It is important to mention here that the Respondent Bank itself delayed the recovery proceedings as Demand Notice was issued on 02.09.2014, possession notice was issued after nine months i.e. on 16.06.2015 and Auction Notice was issued on 20.01.2022, which was finally withdrawn, so the Applicant, being borrower is not only responsible in recovery. As the Applicant has deposited a handsome amount and so both the parties are at liberty get the account settle, if possible, between both the parties amicabally. With these observations, all pending IAs are also disposed of as infructuous.

¶57

Copy of the order be given free to the parties concerned. File be placed before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record.

¶58

(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶59

¶60

SA/74/2022

Satwic Jeewanshala v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satwic Jeewanshala 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

Devendra Singh Rathore versus Idfc Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sh Ramnarayan

State Bank of India versus Jitendra Mali

Mohan Lal versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Koyali Devi

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Ram Singh Meena