In a securitization application, the applicant challenged a sale notice and E-Auction proceedings, alleging violation of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Tribunal held that the respondent complied with statutory requirements regarding valuation and notice, and dismissed the application.
Securitization Application dismissed with costs.
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-III, CHANDIGARH
SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.326/2023 PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 19.12.2023 DATE OF DECISION: 02.01.2024
Sh. Vikrant Gupta S/o Late Sh. Vinod Gupta, R/o B-X-83, Mistrian Mohalla, Kathuee Bazar, Sujanpur, Tehsil and District Pathankot
……..Applicant
Versus
Central Bank of India, Branch Sujjanpur, through its Branch Manager/Authorised Officer
……Respondent
Argued by: Sh. Munish Puri, Advocate for Applicant
Sh. Vivek Verma, Advocate for Respondent
FINAL ORDER
It was further stated that SARFAESI action initiated against the secured asset is illegal and violative. Therefore, the same may be quashed.
SA-326/2023 VIKRANT GUPTA VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
2
“ (5) before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of the following methods: -
SA-326/2023 VIKRANT GUPTA VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3
(d) By private treaty:”
“ that the proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, cannot be held to be bad in law merely on raising and trivial objection which has no legs to stand unless the person is able to show any substantial prejudice being caused on account of procedural laps as prescribed under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder still with caveat that it always depends upon the facts of each case to decipher the nature of the procedural laps being complained of and the resultant prejudice, if any being caused and there cannot be a straitjacket formula which can be uniformly followed in all the transactions”.
Date: 02.01.2024
Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal.
(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sale notice and E-Auction notice issued under the Act and Rules are illegal due to non-compliance with Rule 8(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Whether the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 can be quashed based on procedural lapses without showing substan
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s L & T Housing Finance Limited Vs. M/s Trishul Developers and AnotherExplained¶30
M/s L & T Housing Finance Limited Vs. M/s Trishul Developers and Another, in civil appeal No(s). 3413 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (c) No(s). 18360 of 2019) deci
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Vikrant Gupta
Central Bank of India
Mridulesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
