The DRT held the bank's auction sale void due to material irregularities, including failure to provide the mandatory 30-day notice after a corrigendum, violating the Securitization Act.
The bank is directed to return the amount deposited by the auction purchaser with 9% simple interest from the date of deposit.
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 7
Case No.MA/195/2025 IN SA/66/2025
SMT MEENA BAHETI Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK
Date: 06.12.2025. Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Bhrigu Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Tapish Saraswat, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
This Misc. application has been filed by the person who participated in the auction and was the highest bidder and according to him, the bank has stated that the property is in physical possession of the bank, but in fact it was not.
Counsel for the respondent bank submits that they brought an corrigendum on 06.12.2024 which was published in two news papers on 08.12.2024. The bank could not have proceeded for auction of the property as once the material terms of auction have changed, 30 days of notice is required before the auction notice, therefore, sale could not have taken place prior to 06.01.2025 under any circumstances.
Further, there also appears to be defect in the sale notice and for bid they have not mentioned any date and time and no encumbrances written none. SA No. 620/2024 was pending that also does not find mention.
Counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Mohd. Shariq Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors which cannot condone their Act of selling the property without 30 days notice from the date of corrigendum.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the sale conducted by the bank is suffering from material irregularities and could not have been carried out as per the provisions of Securitization Act. Therefore, any steps taken by the bank in furtherance to the same does not hold water and liable to be set aside.
Counsel for the bank submits that the account has been closed as per the compromise. The deliberate omission of mentioning forfeited amount while analyzing the proposal speaks volume of the connivance of the borrower and the bank.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Without going into any further detail, the bank is hereby directed to return the amount to the auction purchaser with 9% (simple) interest from the date of deposit.
Compliance report be filed within one month from today, if not compliance is made, the MA applicant can move appropriate application.
In view of the above, this Misc. Application stands disposed of as allowed. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the auction sale conducted by the bank suffers from material irregularities due to lack of 30-day notice after a corrigendum?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Shariq Vs. Punjab National Bank and OrsRelied on¶11
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Meena Baheti
Punjab and Sind Bank
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
