Dismissed

Neeraj Kumar v. Punjab National Bank

DRT20 Jan 2024RA/3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal examined claims that sale notices were not properly served and the sale notice was fabricated. The Tribunal rejected these contentions, holding that the applicant raised identical issues in the prior Sale Proceedings which had been duly considered and decided by the Tribunal. Consequently, the review was deemed unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed for lack of merit as it re-agitated issues already decided in the prior proceedings.

Neeraj Kumar versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

RA No.3/2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

RA No.3 of 2024 Neeraj Kumar Versus Punjab National Bank

¶4

20.01.2024 Item No.55

¶5

Argued by: Mr. Rajneesh Chauhan, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. CS Pasricha, Counsel for Respondent Bank.

¶6

Neeraj Kumar (Applicant) has filed this Review Application under Rule 5A of the DRT procedure Rules 1993 for review of the order dated 30.12.2023.

¶7

The background facts are that one Rajinder Singh had taken a loan of Rs.40.00 lacs from PNB. Applicant was the guarantor and he had also mortgaged his property to secure the loan in favour of the bank. Since, the bank had initiated SARFAESI proceedings, applicant had challenged SARFAESI proceedings before this Tribunal by filing SA No.25/2021. Vide order dated 30.12.2023, the said SA was dismissed on merit.

¶8

Applicant had alleged in his SA that he was not served with the sale notice as per Rule 8(6) Appendix-IV-A of the rules. He further alleged that in Annexure A-3 (E-auction Notice), the description of the property (guarantor) was not mentioned. Only the property of the borrower was mentioned. However, the bank has sold the property of the guarantor in E-auction. The bank had not served the sale notice.

¶9

With this background, I come to the present Review Application.

¶10

Applicant in the Review Application has alleged that the sale notice Annexure A-3 and A-5 were not served upon him as per Rule 8(6) Appendix-IVA. Further, in the E-auction Annexure A-3 the description of his property was not given. The bank had mentioned the property of the borrower only. However, the bank sold the property of the applicant/guarantor. Further, in the sale notice Exhibit R/1, it is mentioned that it is proclamation of sale, accordingly, it cannot be said to be a sale notice. The names of the borrower and guarantor have not been mentioned on the alleged sale notice. The affixation was not proper, the date of affixation has not been mentioned. The actual value of the property was around Rs.60.70 lacs, no inventory and punchnama was prepared. Bank in the reply to the SA had alleged that applicant and Rajinder kumar had filed a joint application . In fact the said SA was not signed by the applicant and Rajinder Kumar had forged his signatures. In the sale notice, the name of the applicant was mentioned as Nandan Kumar instead Neeraj Kumar. Applicant has alleged that this Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that respondent bank had failed to serve the demand notice

¶11

¶12

RA No.3/2024

¶13

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶14

under Section 13(2) and 13(4). Further, the Tribunal has not appreciated that in IA No.161 of 2022 filed by the auction purchaser, he had not mentioned, when he had deposited the earnest money and the remaining sum. Further, this Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the copy of E-auction notice was downloaded from the bank website https://www.mstcecommerce.com in which the date of E- auction notice was mentioned as 21.01.2021. This Tribunal has erred while holding that sale notice dated 21.01.2021 produced by the applicant is a fabricated one. Applicant has alleged that he had raised a specific plea that respondent bank has not produced the E-auction notice. The reason for not filing E-auction notice was apparent as date on the same was mentioned as 21.01.2021, whereas, in the proclamation of sale notice date of sale notice is 22.01.2021. Further, in the newspaper publication the date is mentioned as 23.01.2021. In the sale notice, Annexure A-3 the description of the property of the applicant was not mentioned. On these facts applicant has filed this review application.

¶15

Bank in the reply has denied the case of the applicant and alleged that there is no error apparent on the face of record. It is stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parsion Devi and others VS. Sumitri Devi and others(1997) 8 SSC 715 has held that the review application can only be filed if there is a error apparent on the fact of the record. In the review application, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. The review application has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be treated an appeal in disguise. The proclamation of sale was issued on 22.01.2021 and not on 21.01.2021. The sale notice was duly served, affixed and published. Accordingly, it is stated that the application is dismissed.

¶16

I have heard, Mr. Rajneesh Chauhan counsel for the applicant bank and Mr. CS Pasricha, counsel for the bank.

¶17

Mr. Chauhan has argued that this tribunal has returned the finding that the sale notice produced by the applicant is a fabricated one. In fact, the bank had issued a notice on 21.01.2021. Later on bank started claiming that notice was issued on 22.01.2021. Counsel submitted that the finding returned by this Tribunal that the sale notice is a fabricated one is erroneous and accordingly, the order dated 30.12.2023 deserves to be reviewed.

¶18

Per contra, Mr. Pasricha has submitted that applicant has not even alleged in the review application that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. A review application can be allowed only, if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. A review application cannot be allowed, even if the decision is

¶19

¶20

RA No.3/2024

¶21

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶22

erroneous, in case the contention raised by the applicant has been considered. In this case, this Tribunal had considered the contentions of the applicant and returned the finding. The bank had produce on the record the sale notice, publication and had produced credible evidence before this Tribunal that the description of the property of the applicant had also been mentioned in the same. The Tribunal had rightly dismissed the SA. There is no merit in the present application.

¶23

I have considered the rival contentions. A perusal of the review application would show that the applicant has raised the same issues in the review application which he had earlier raised in the SA. In the SA, applicant had alleged that in the sale notice dated 21.01.2021 the description of his property had not mentioned. However, the bank had alleged that it had not issued the notice dated 21.01.2021 and had issued the notice on 22.01.2021. I am of the considered view that the applicant intends to raise the same issues, which he had earlier raised in the SA and which have been met by this Tribunal. He cannot be allowed to raise the same. There is no merit in the present review application and the same be dismissed.

¶24

All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶25

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶26

Pronounced in open court. SAURABH/DATED/20/01/2024

¶27

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

¶28

Neeraj Kumar v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Plancraft

Canara Bank versus Sri Pulin Saikia

Canara Bank versus M/s M.D.S. Infra Nirman Private Limited and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Vinod Kumar

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Sarita Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Alliance Tradevision Pvt. Ltd.