Kusum v. Uco Bank

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

S.A.No. L6912O25

KUSUM Vs. UCO BANK

24.07.2025

Item no.2

Present: Shri Mahender Kumar Sharma, counsel for applicant. Shri Brijesh Kumar Tamber, counsel for respondent bank.

Matter is taken through VC/Hybrid mode.

1. The Ld. C.ounsel for the applicant has submitted that the notice issued by the respondent bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is invalid as the date of NPA and the NPA amount is wrong. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 13(2) is defective. It is prayed that the respondent bank may be restrained from taking physical possession of the property i.e. first floor, Flat no. 39, Residential Colony known as Ashoka Enclave Extension no. 1, Sector-34, Faridabad, Haryana.

1. The Ld. Counsel for respondent bank has submitted that the property in question has already been auctioned and sale certificate has been issued. It is fufther submitted that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present SA as the loan has been sanctioned from Faridabad Branch and property in question is also situated at Faridabad. The notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and sale notice has also been issued from the Faridabad. Therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enteftain the present SA.