The Debt Recovery Tribunal quashed the SARFAESI action and sale notice issued by the bank. The Tribunal held that the action suffered a fundamental infirmity because the possession notice under Section 13(4) was not properly affixed, served, or published as required by law.
The SARFAESI action initiated against the applicants is quashed.
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.
1
ORT, PATNA
SA176 of 2023 [J)
DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNALPATNA
PresidingOfficer: Shri KaushalendraYadav
SA- 176of 2023
All Residents of : Village - Bithalpur, P.O.Amari, Police Station + District - Jamui.
.........Applicants
Versus
--respondents
Present:
Forthe Applicant : Sh.Satish Nr.Sinha,Advocate Forthe RespondentBank : Sh.ManoranjanKr. Mishra.Advocate
Dated:01.01.2025
JUDGMENT
J '-6~'~. / .r: ~'7 ,",J"--' f~\ '"' ~~,
2
DRT,PATNA
SA 176 of 2023 [JI
SARFAESI Action against the borrower & guarantor by issuing Demand Notice dated 03.11.2021u/s 13(2) of the act calling upon the borrower to make the payment of Rs.15,13,756.05.Thereafter, the respondent took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 18.01.2022u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank proceeded further and put the property on auction sale by issuing auction sale notice dated 05.05.2023fixing the date of auction sale on 05.06.2023. Aggrieved from the sale notice present SA has been filed by the applicants.
/JJ ~.j:7
'J~v ?\ ()\
3
DRT,PATNA
SA 176 of 2023 !JJ
declared through system generated programmed as per RBI guidelines. After declaration of account as NPA,the respondent bank served demand notice dated 03.11.2021to the applicants as also admitted by the applicants in its application. Against the demand notice the applicant submitted its representation/objection dated 25.12.2021u/s 13(3-A) with the bank which was duly replied by the respondent bank vide letter dated 01.01.2022. Thereafter, the respondent took possession of the property by affixing the Possession Notice dated 18.01.2022on the secured asset. The possession notice was sent to the applicants through registered post on 03.02.2022and it was also published in Hindustan and Hindustan Times on 21.01.2022. Further, the respondent put the property on auction sale by issuing auction sale notice dated 05.05.2023fixing the date of auction sale on 05.06.2023 but the sale was postponed in compliance of order dated 02.06.2023passed by this Tribunal in the present matter. However, the applicants failed to comply further condition of payment regarding deposit of RS.3 lacs every month commencing from 05.07.2023.The property has been duly registered with CER5AI.
v/V' ./'
~~/ (,L:>
v '"Y
J'--Y' '\G\ "-
c>
j~
4
ORT, PATNA
SA 176 of 2023 (JI
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule, 2002 is concerned, it appears that the possession notice was issued on 18.01.2022and same was affixed on secured asset as evident from annexure - 1, page 11of counter affidavit. The possession notice was also sent to the applicant no.1 through registered post on 03.02.2022. The copy of postal receipt is annexed with counter affidavit as annexure -1, page 10 but the respondent bank failed to file the proof of service of possession notice to the applicant no. 2 & 3 despite specific allegation of applicants regarding non service of possession notice. Apart from this the possession notice was allegedly issued on 18.01.2022but the same was dispatched to the applicant no.1 much delayed i.e. on 03.02.2022 moreover the possession notice is said to have been published in Hindustan and Hindustan Times on 21.01.2022as stated in its counter affidavit. The respondent bank also failed to file evidence of publication as the annexure enclosed regarding publication does not contain the name of newspaper or its date of publication.
ORDER
The application SA 176 of 2023, is Allowed with costs. The SARFAESIAction in question initiated against the applicants iS~y /' quashed. ,-yD-Y:> _,\0_ 0'
[KaushalendraYadav]
Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna
Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open / on this O1sT Day of January, 2025. \0\ -yO--n ,;: D'_
[KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the SARFAESI action initiated by the bank violated Section 13(4) due to procedural defects in the possession notice.
Whether the declaration of the borrower's account as NPA was lawful despite allegations regarding limits.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
The Authorised Officer, Regional Office, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank
Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank
KaushalendraYadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
