Dismissed

Om Sai Trading Co. through its proprietor Anju Bansal v. State Bank of India

DRT22 Oct 2025SA/145/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the SARFAESI action taken by State Bank of India. The Tribunal rejected claims regarding inadequate notice, illegal auction due to delayed deposit, and mandatory acceptance of a settlement proposal.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed with no merit found in the applicants' contentions.

Om Sai Trading Co. through its proprietor Anju… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA/145/2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/145/2024

¶4

M/s OM SAI TRADING CO. THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ANJU BANSAL Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶5

22.10.2025 ITEM NO.44

¶6

Argued by: Ms Arti Aman Arora Advocate for the Applicant (SA) Mr. Rajnish K. Jindal Advocate for the Respondent Bank

¶7

M/s Om Sai Trading Company and others (Applicants) have

¶8

filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against SBI and another (Respondents).

¶9

Admittedly, Applicant No.1 is the proprietorship firm of Applicant No.2. Applicant No.3 is the Guarantor. Applicants were enjoying credit facilities from SBI Kaithal Road Branch, Pehowa since 2010-2011. To secure the loan, Applicant No.3 had created security interest in respect of Shop No.76, New Grain Market, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, measuring 188.88 sq. yards by depositing sale-deed No.746/1, dated 24.08.1982 in his favor with the Bank. Though, the Applicants continued to maintain the account properly till 2021, yet on 10.03.2022, the account of the Applicants was declared NPA. On 17.03.2022, the Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. On 12.05.2022, the Applicants filed objections to the same. On 10.06.2022, the Bank rejected the objections of the Applicants. On 08.07.2022, the Bank issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. On 19.07.2022, the Applicants made a request for restructuring of the loan. On 09.06.2023 (Annexure A-10), the Applicants made a request for settlement. On

¶10

¶11

SA/145/2024

¶12

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶13

06.12.2023, the Applicants again made a request for settlement. Applicants also filed CWP No.20815 of 2022 (O&M) in the Hon’ble High Court. However, on 31.01.2024, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the same with the observations that the Applicants may well avail remedies available to them in accordance with law for the redressal of their grievances. On 08.02.2024, the Bank issued the sale notice fixing up the auction for 15.03.2024. On 25.02.2024, Applicants filed the present SA. The property was auctioned on 15.03.2024. On 27.11.2024, the Applicants moved IA No. 1796 of 2024 for amendment of the SA; for impleadment of the Auction Purchaser and for challenging the auction. Vide order dated 27.01.2025 the said IA was allowed and the SA was allowed to be amended and Mr. Anil Kumar Bansal, Auction Purchaser was impleaded as a party.

¶14

In the amended SA, the Applicants alleged that Applicant No.1 is an MSME Unit. As per RBI policy, the Respondent was bound to place the case of the Applicants for restructuring before the Designated Committee. However, the Bank, did not place the case of the Applicants before the Designated Committee. Applicants also requested to the Bank to reconcile the interest charged in their account as the Bank had charged the interest excessively. However, the bank did not reconcile their account and kept on charging the interest. On 17.03.2022, the Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. On 12.05.2022, they had filed objections and requested the Bank to recall the demand notice. However, on 10.06.2022, the Bank rejected all the objections. The default on the part of the Applicants was not

¶15

¶16

SA/145/2024

¶17

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶18

wilful. On 08.07.2022, the Bank took the symbolic possession, though, in that very property there is a tenant even prior to the loan account and the Applicants along with their family are residing on the first floor of the property. After receiving the possession notice dated 08.07.2022, they had again made a representation to the Bank requesting it to restructure the account as per RBI policy or in the alternative to settle the account under OTS. However, the Bank neither accepted the request for restructuring nor allowed their OTS. Aggrieved by the acts of the Bank, the Applicants filed CWP No.20815 of 2022 in the Hon’ble High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2024. During the pendency of the CWP also, on 09.06.2023 they made a request for OTS and submitted a Cheque for Rs.30 lacs. However, the Bank rejected and returned the money. On 17.02.2024, the Applicants received the sale notice from the Bank. The sale notice was issued on 07.02.2024 and the auction was fixed up for 15.03.2024. Vide letter dated 06.12.2023, the Applicants submitted the proposal to settle their account for Rs.1.54 Crore. However, the Bank without responding to the same, put up the property for auction at the reserve price of Rs.1.46 Crore. Applicants were not given 30 days’ notice. They were served with the sale notice on 17.02.2024. The auction was conducted on 15.03.2024. Accordingly, there was no clear 30 days’ notice. The notice was published on 08.02.2024. The account of the Applicants was declared NPA wrongly. Vide order dated 21.03.2024 passed by this Tribunal, the issuance of the Sale Certificate was stayed. The auction had taken place on 15.03.2024. However, the Bank had sent an E-mail to the

¶19

¶20

SA/145/2024

¶21

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶22

Auction Purchaser to deposit 25% of the highest bid on 18.03.2024. As per rules, the Auction Purchaser should have deposited 25% of the sale consideration by 16.03.2024. Since, 25% of the sale consideration was not deposited on the next date, the auction is illegal. Applicants have also alleged that the SARFAESI action initiated by the Bank is illegal as their case was not referred to the Designated Committee; their objections to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act were rejected outrightly without application of mind. The sale notice was served upon the Applicants on 17.02.2024 and the auction was fixed up for 15.03.2024. The Applicants were not given 30 days’ notice. The sale notice does not contain all the data. The auction notice was published on 08.02.2024. On these facts, Applicants filed the present SA on 25.02.2024.

¶23

Respondent Bank in reply has denied the case of the Applicants and alleged that the Bank has followed proper procedure. The case of the Applicants was put up before the Designated Committee. However, the Designated Committee rejected the same. Further it is stated that the SA be dismissed.

¶24

During the proceedings, the Auction Purchaser also appeared. However, he did not file any reply.

¶25

Mr. Arti Aman Arora, counsel for the Applicants has argued that the whole of the SARFAESI action taken by the Bank is illegal null and void. The account was declared NPA wrongly. The Applicant is an MSME Unit. As per the RBI guidelines dated 17.03.2016, the Bank was under obligation to place the case of the Applicants before the Designated Committee for restructuring. The Applicants had made

¶26

¶27

SA/145/2024

¶28

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶29

requests for restructuring on two occasions. However, the Bank did not put up the case of the Applicant for restructuring, before the Designated Committee. The auction notice was issued on 07.02.2024.

¶30

It was served upon the Applicants on 17.02.2024. The auction was fixed up for 15.03.2024. Accordingly, the Applicants were not given clear 30 days’ notice. Be that as it may, the Auction Purchaser had deposited 25% of the sale consideration on 19.03.2024. As per the SARFAESI Act, the Auction Purchaser was under obligation to deposit 25% of the sale consideration on the very next day of the auction. Counsel submitted that the Applicant had given an OTS proposal of Rs.1.54 crore. However, the Bank did not accept the same and strangely put up the property for auction at the reserve price of Rs.1.46 crore. Ms Arora also submitted that the Bank states that the Applicants have played fraud. However, the Bank never issued any notice to them to declare their account as fraud account. Accordingly, the SA deserves to be allowed.

¶31

Per contra , Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jindal, counsel for the Respondent Bank argued that the Bank has followed proper procedure. The case of the Applicant was placed before the Designated Committee. However, the Applicants did not appear before the Designated Committee. Accordingly, the Bank was left with no alternative except to reject the restructure proposal. The auction notice was dated 07.02.2024 which was duly served upon the Applicants on 12.02.2024. Applicants deliberately did not receive the notice. Drawing my attention of the tracking report, it was submitted that as per the tracking report, the item was kept on hold at the request

¶32

¶33

SA/145/2024

¶34

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶35

of the Applicants and the Applicants were duly informed about the same. Despite the fact that the auction notice was served upon the Applicants on 12.02.2024, the Applicants continued to keep the sale notice on hold till 17.02.2024. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Applicants were not served with the auction notice. Further, regarding the auction, it was submitted that the service provider had intimated the Bank about the highest bidder on 18.03.2024. The Bank had intimated the Auction Purchaser accordingly, who had deposited the balance sale consideration on 19.03.2024. Accordingly, the money was deposited by the Auction Purchaser within time. Applicants have played fraud with the Bank. Accordingly, the OTS proposal submitted by the Applicants was rejected. It is stated that there is no merit in the SA and the same be dismissed.

¶36

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶37

I have already given the chronology of events in the opening part of the judgment. Applicants were enjoying credit facilities from the Bank since 2012. On 10.03.2022, their account was declared NPA. On 17.03.2022, the Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. On 12.05.2022, the Applicants had filed objections, which were rejected by the Bank on 10.06.2022. The Bank had taken the symbolic possession on 08.07.2022. The Applicants had filed CWP No.20815 of 2022 (O&M) which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 31.01.2024 and they were granted liberty to avail remedies available to them in accordance with law for the redressal of their grievances. Applicants filed the present SA on 25.02.2024. This

¶38

¶39

SA/145/2024

¶40

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶41

is apparent from the record that the case of the Applicants was placed before the Designated Committee. However, the Bank rejected it on 14.11.2022. Again, at the request of the Applicants, the matter was placed before the Designated Committee. The Designated Committee also summoned the Applicants. However, the Applicants did not appear before the Designated Committee and the Committee rejected the same on 18.01.2023. I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the Applicants that they were not given 30 days clear notice. A look at the tracking report shows that the sale notice was issued on 07.02.2024. It had reached the business premises of the Applicants on 12.02.2024. However, they requested the Postman to keep it on hold. The notice was duly received by them on 17.02.2024. Since, the Applicants themselves had requested the postman to keep the postal article on hold on 12.02.2024, it would be presumed that the notice was served upon them on 12.02.2024. The auction was fixed up for 15.03.2024. Accordingly, the Applicants were given 30 days’ notice. That apart, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the Applicants that the auction is bad as the Auction Purchaser had not deposited 25% of the sale consideration on the next date of the auction. The Auction Purchaser is supposed to deposit 25% of the sale consideration only when he has been intimated that he is the successful bidder. The Service Provider had intimated the Bank on 18.03.2024 that Mr. Anil Kumar Bansal is the highest bidder. The Bank had intimated the Auction Purchaser on that very day, who had deposited the total sale consideration on 19.03.2024. In these circumstances, it cannot be said

¶42

¶43

SA/145/2024

¶44

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶45

that the Auction Purchaser had deposited the money late. I am of the considered view that there is also no force in the contention of the Applicants that the Bank was not justified in accepting the OTS proposal of the Applicants. The law is well-settled that the Bank is not bound to accept the OTS proposal of the borrower. The contention is thus, rejected.

¶46

Having considered all the aspects of the case, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the SA and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶47

A copy of this Final Order be furnished to all the parties free of

¶48

cost.

¶49

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (A.S. Narang) Dated: 22.10.2025 Presiding Officer RBY DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional Charge)

¶50

¶51

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶52

SA/145/2024

¶53

Om Sai Trading Co. through its proprietor Anju Bansal v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Sai Trading Co. through its proprietor Anju Bansal v. State 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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Smiriti Maharishi Sarin and Ors.

Canara Bank versus Vishwanath Hj

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Gangamma Batra

Simarjit Singh versus State Bank of India

Federal Bank versus Aliyar

Sony Sebastian versus Kerala Gramin Bank