Gupta Plywood and furniture store v. Uco Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, rejected the Securitization Application filed by the applicant against UCO Bank. The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the Section 13(2) notice because no measure under Section 13(4) had been taken. Citing the Explanation to Section 17, the court ruled the application was not maintainable.
What did the court decide?
The Securitization Application was rejected as not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction, and court fees were refunded to the applicant.
What the court decided
SA/181/2025
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/181/2025 GUPTA PLYWOOD AND FURNITURE STORE AND ANOTHER Vs UCO BANK
27.06.2025 Item No.2
Present: Mr. Arjun Shukla, Counsel for the Applicants.
Registrar has put up this SA before me with the following remarks: -
SA has been filed on the basis of notice issued by the bank U/S 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. Notice U/S 13(4) not issued. As per the provisions of Section 17 of SARFAESI Act this application is not maintainable. However counsel for the applicant submits that he has been given the liberty by Honorable Punjab and Haryana High Court to file the present application before DRT. Accordingly this application is registered and listed before Honorable Presiding Officer .
- The case of the Applicants, as set up in the SA, is that Applicant No.1 is a proprietorship concern and Applicant No.2 is its proprietor. Since, 21.03.2022 Applicant has been availing C.C. Limit of Rs.40.00 Lacs from the respondent Bank. During the COVID-19, it was sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.10.00 Lacs. Till 2023, Applicant was regularly servicing the credit facilities. However, in September, 2023, Applicant No.2 suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. On account of this, his real brother Mr. Sunil Kumar, took undue advantage of his absence. His brother Mr. Sunil Kumar, in connivance with the Bank officials procured multiple cheque leaves and unofficially withdrew the amount of Rs.51,91,525/- from his account. It is also stated that Mr. Sunil Kumar, also encashed a cheque dated 24.01.2024 by putting his own signature. In fact, Applicant had never applied for the loose cheques. Again a sum of Rs.1.50 Lacs was transferred from the account of the Applicant. On coming to know of this fraud, Applicant lodged formal complaints with the banking ombudsman and local police. All these complaints are
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application challenging a cognizance notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the Explanation to Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act bars Tribunal jurisdiction in the absence of a measure under Section 13(4).
Parties & counsel
- applicant
GUPTA PLYWOOD AND FURNITURE STORE AND ANOTHER
- respondent
UCO BANK
Coram
A S Narang
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court