In a securitisation application under the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal examined challenges to the bank’s possession order and auction sale of mortgaged property. The Court rejected claims of procedural illegality and low-price sale, holding the auction valid and the application unmeritorious.
The Securitisation Application No.15/2024 was 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.
Presented on: 05.01.2024 Registered on: 08.01.2024 Decided on: 05.04.2025 Duration: Y M D
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.15/2024
… Applicants
Versus
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 1 of 15
[KAUR]
Branch Office: Near Post Office Pimpri, Pune – 411 018.
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 2 of 15
[KAUR]
And also at
... Defendants
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 3 of 15
[KAUR]
APPEARANCES
| For the Applicants | Mrs. Rinku Agarwal - Advocate |
|---|---|
| For defendant Nos.1 and 2 | Mr. Ronak Shah – Advocate |
| For defendant No.3 | In person |
| Defendant Nos. 4 to 10 | Ex parte |
| For defendant No.11 | Mrs. Madhuri R. Vaidya |
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 5th April, 2025)
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 4 of 15
[KAUR]
Notice dated 22/10/2024 and from selling/auctioning the property on 13/11/2024 to any third Party and from confirming and issuing Sale Certificate and registering the same, from accepting 75% of the amount till hearing disposal of the SA.
(d) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall be restrained by issuing Permanent Injunction from acting upon the Auction Notice dated 22/10/2024 and from selling/auctioning the property on 13/11/2024 to any third Party and from confirming and issuing Sale Certificate and registering the same, from accepting 75% of the amount till hearing disposal of the SA.
The applicant No.1 is registered Partnership Firm and applicant Nos.2 and 3 are its Partners. Defendant No.1 is Authorised Officer of defendant No.2 bank. Defendant No.2 is lender bank. Defendant No.3, Partnership Firm is principal borrower and defendant Nos.3(A) and 3(B) are its Partners. Defendant No.4 Mrs. Reena Nilesh Thole was erstwhile Partner
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 5 of 15
[KAUR]
of defendant No.3 Firm and is wife of defendant No.5 Mr. Nilesh Suresh Thole. At present defendant No.5 Mr. Nilesh Suresh Thole is Partner of defendant No.3 Firm. Defendant No.6 was then Branch Manager of defendant No.2 bank. Defendant No.7 is Company from whom the defendant No.3 obtained loan from defendant No.2 bank. Defendant Nos.8 to 10 are the Firms who have received benefit of loan transaction and related with defendant No.5 Mr. Nilesh Suresh Thole.
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 6 of 15
[KAUR]
properties and applicants challenged the same by filing Securitisation Application No.639/2023.
Defendant No.2 bank and Authorised Officer made Application to District Magistrate u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act along with Affidavit. However, in the Application and Affidavit they deliberately mentioned that applicants have not made representation to the Demand Notice issued u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by the bank. Further, the Affidavit is not affirmed and suffering from discrepancies and not fulfilling the requirements provided in SARFAESI Rules. Oath was not administered while executing the Affidavit and same remarks in that regard are not made in the Affidavit. Thus, Affidavit is not according to law. However, District Magistrate by relying on the same passed Order u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act which is not legal and valid.
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 7 of 15
[KAUR]
have paid Rs.2,04,06,148/- towards repayment of loan after loan account was classified as NPA. The suit property has been sold at throwaway price to defendant No.11 Auction Purchaser. Therefore, the applicants are claiming aforementioned reliefs and pray for allowing the same.
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 8 of 15
[KAUR]
therefore, prays for dismissal of the Securitisation Application.
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 9 of 15
[KAUR]
REASONS
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 10 of 15
[KAUR]
after loan account has become NPA. In the circumstances, relief as claimed may be granted.
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 11 of 15
[KAUR]
sold out in the month of November, 2024. Therefore, since there are no merits in the case of the applicants, it may be dismissed.
In support of his contentions, he relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CELIR LLP Vs. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors. [ Contempt Petition (C) Nos.158-159 of 2024 decided on 13th December, 2024].
As to Point No.1
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 12 of 15
[KAUR]
representation made by the applicants to Demand Notice issued by defendant bank, it is not fatal to the case. Therefore, Order passed u/s 14 does not become defective and illegal. Per contra, the District Magistrate while passing Order considered all facts mentioned in the Application and Affidavit. Therefore, the said Order cannot be termed as illegal and defective. Therefore, applicants are not entitled for relief in that regard. Therefore, I answer this point in the negative.
As to Point No.2
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 13 of 15
[KAUR]
fixed at Rs.8,92,69,646.9973. However, it is of April, 2025. The suit property has been sold out in the month of November, 2024. Separate Valuation Report allegedly obtained by the applicant is not produced on record. It is pertinent to note that disputed sale is Ninth auction sale. Earlier the defendant bank made attempts for eight times to sell the suit property and Reserve Price of first sale which was to be conducted in the month of February, 2024 was Rs.7,36,46,000/-. However, bids were not received and therefore, at subsequent auction sales Reserve Price has been reduced by 10% and for Ninth disputed auction sale Reserve Price was fixed for Rs.6,07,50,000/- and suit property has been sold for Rs.6,08,50,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit property has been sold at very low price in auction. According to me, reasonable price has been fetched by defendant bank by selling the suit property. Therefore, I find no merits in the allegation of the applicants that suit property has been illegally sold in auction. Therefore, I answer this point in the negative.
As to Point Nos.3 and 4
Therefore, by answering these points accordingly , I pass the following
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 14 of 15
[KAUR]
order:
ORDER
Securitisation Application No.15/2024 is hereby dismissed with
costs.
Pronounced in open Court.
Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date: 05.04.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune
(SA No.15/2024)
Page 15 of 15
[KAUR]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order passed u/s 14 by the District Magistrate is illegal due to deficiency in the supporting documents?
Whether the suit property was illegally sold in auction at a disproportionately low price?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CELIR LLP vs. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors.Applied¶97
CELIR LLP Vs. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. MBLEM Digital
Shri Mandar Shriniwas Mudgal
Shri Kaustubh Shriniwas Mudgal
The Authorised Officer, UCO Bank
UCO Bank
M/s. Gurukrupa Specialty Films
Dilip G Murumkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
