Allowed

Tarun Kumar v. Central Bank of India

DRT1 Jan 2025SA/140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application to quash SARFAESI action. The court held that the bank illegally took possession without serving demand or possession notices, as the allegations were uncontroverted, directing the bank to restore possession and pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; respondent bank directed to pay Rs. 50,000 and restore possession of property within 30 days.

Tarun Kumar versus Central Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

ORT, PATNA

SA 140 of 2024 [J)

DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNALPATNA

¶5

PresidingOfficer:ShriKaushalendraYadav

¶6

SA- 140of 2024

¶7

Tarun Kumar, Son of Mr. Chandeshwari Prasad Yadav, Rio - At East End Royal, NH - 107, Vishwakarma Chowk, Patuwaha, Saharsa.

¶8

At Present: - Sudha Sadan,RadhaNagar, Ward No. 13, P.O. + P.S. - Saharsa (Borrower).

¶9

Mrs. Rinki Kumari, Wlo Mr. Tarun Kumar, Rio At - Sudha Sadan, RadhaNagar, Ward No.13,P.O.+ P.S.- Saharsa (Guarantor).

¶10

.........Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Central Bank of India, through Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Mourya Lok Complex, 2nd Floor, Patna - 800001.

¶13

The Authorized Officer, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Katihar, Rajendra Prasad Path, Sah Katra Market, Katihar 854105.

¶14

Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, D.B. Road Branch, Saharsa.

¶15

--respondents

¶16

Present:

¶17

Forthe Applicant : Sh.C.S.P.Sinha,Advocate

¶18

Forthe RespondentBank : Sh.RakeshRanjan,Advocate

¶19

Dated:01.01.2025

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Present application has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESIaction taken against the properties of applicant alongwith the possession notice.

¶22

The brief fact of the case is that the applicants availed some Credit facilities from respondent bank and mortgaged the property towards security of the loan. Due to default in repay~? the bank,

!~/O\D\

DRT,PATNA

SA 140 of 2024 [J]

¶27

the accounts were classified as NPA on 28.11.2021. In order to recover outstanding dues, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower & guarantor by issuing Demand Notice dated 10.01.2022u/s 13(2) of the act calling upon the borrower to make the payment of Rs.96,24,589.05. Thereafter, the respondent took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 14.03.2024 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved from the possession of the property, present SA has been filed by the applicants.

¶28

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicant that the respondent bank mentioned an amount of Rs.6,67,533/- against account no. 3839758867provided under CENTGECLin the Demand Notice while no such amount has been disbursed to the applicants. The said facility was provided to another account namely M/s Jai Baba Vishwakarma. It is further submitted that the respondent bank sanctioned RS.11,74,207.93on 30.09.2021under Cent GECL3.08MSME to the applicants for repayment in 06 months but the respondent bank declared the accounts as NPA within 02 months from the disbursement of FITL. The demand notice issued by the respondent bank was not served to the applicants. The Possession notice issued any, has not been served upon the applicants. The possession notice was also neither affixed on secured assets nor published in two leading newspapers. Without serving of possession notice, the respondent bank directly took the physical possession of the property with the help of District Administration and sealed the premises of applicants. The applicant came to know from the Handbill affixed for the general public on secured assets.

¶29

The respondent bank appeared in the matter through his counsel on 11.06.2024and filed Vakalatnama. Since then several opportunities were granted to the respondent bank for filing counter affidavit but the respondent bank failed to file any counter affidavit against the ~

¶30

application of applicants. / /

¶31

¶32

DRT, PATNA

¶33

SA 140 of 20241J!

¶34

I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶35

It has been alleged that without service of demand notice as well as possession notice the respondent bank taken physical possession of the property on 14.03.2024and sealed the premises of applicants

¶36

It is important to mention here that the respondent Bank neither controverterted the allegation by filing counter affidavit nor produced any documents to controvert the applicants.

¶37

In view of the above discussion, the allegation made in the present S.A. goes un-rebutted and uncontroverted. As such cannot be disbelieved. Accordingly the application deserves to be allowed.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act filed by Tarun Kumar &. Ors. (SA 140 of 2024), is allowed with cost. The respondent bank is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for taking physical possession illegally and it is further directed to restore the physical possession of the property to the applicant within 30 days.

¶40

A copy of this Judgment be sent to the parties as well as be also uploaded on the e-DRTportal. TIf'~

¶41

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶42

Presiding Officer

¶43

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶44

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶45

Presiding Officer

¶46

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Tarun Kumar v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Kumar v. Central Bank of India

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

Mr. Ali Abbas versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

Bank of India versus M/s Maa Papers

Union Bank of India versus Sri Ajit Kumar

Kumar Vishal Singh and Others versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank

Ms Rajnandani Noodles Udyog and Others versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Sri. v. Amaregouda