Dismissed

Ms Ramna Construction v. Indian Bank

DRT17 Jul 2025SA/186/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna dismissed an installment application challenging a SARFAESI action by Indian Bank. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in notice service and evidence regarding deceased guarantors but held that no relief could be granted to the applicant, resulting in dismissal of the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the SARFAESI action was dismissed.

Ms Ramna Construction versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATNA

¶2

Date of order or proceeding	Order with the Signature of the Court	Office action taken with date
17.07.2025	Accordingly, the present IA 580 of2024 is dismissed. Ithas been submitted on behalf of the applicant with regards to the merits of the case that no notice under section 13(2) and 13(4) has ever been served upon the applicant for the SARFAESI Action in question. Ithas been specially pointed out on behalf of the applicant that the property in question has not been registered under CERSAI therefore the respondent bank is not competent to initiate SARF AESI Action against the applicant and the entire SARFAESI Action is illegal. Ld. counsel for the applicant further argued that initially the account in question was declared as NPA on 08.08.2019 thereafter the date ofNPA has been changed from 08.08.2019 to 28.09.2020 by withdrawing the previous demand notice and issued a fresh demand notice. That was not accompanied by the account statement, so the applicant was not in position to file any representation against the demand notice. In reply, Id. counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that although the property in question was registe5ed wi, CERSAI but at SA 186 of 2022 Mis Ramna Construction Vs. Indian Bank Ld. counsels for the parties are present. It has been informed on behalf of the applicant that the IA 218 of 2025 has been filed for impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased partner Mr. Arjun Singh. But from the perusal of the application, it appears that no reason for impleadment of aforesaid persons have been mentioned in the application. It has been submitted that Mr. Arjun Singh had died on 29.07.2019 and the account in question was declared NPA thereafter. Ithas not been disclosed that Mr. Arjun Singh was guarantor or mortgager to the loan in question. In such circumstances, as no ground is made out in the application for impleadment, the present application (IA) is dismissed. Ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the IA 580 of 2024 has been moved with the prayer to allow & accept the supplementary affidavit being filed by the applicant but no supplementary affidavit has been annexed to this IA.	Contd.2

¶3

17.07.2025

¶4

present there is no evidence on record to show the CERSAI Registration.
The respondent has filed the counter affidavit wherein at page no.07, the
copy of the demand notice has been filed disclosing that the account was
declared NPA on 28.09.2020.

¶5

So far as the service of the aforesaid notice is concerned, the respondent bank has filed the annexure 2 at page no.11 the photocopies of the postal dispatch receipt but surprisingly this document has not been made part of the affidavit by putting the signatures of the deponent and by putting the signatures of the notary.

¶6

Similar is the case with the possession notice, that too is not signed or verified properly as a part of the counter affidavit. So far as the dispatch of the possession notice is concerned, at page no.I8 the postal dispatch receipt has been filed. No tracking report for the demand notice as well as the possession notice has been filed. The tracking is the best evidence that has been withheld by the respondent so the willful withholding of the best evidence gives rise to the adverse inference against the respondent bank. So far as the sale is concerned, ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the sale notice has been served upon the applicant but 30 clear days have not been provided from the date of service of the notice to the date of auction sale. But the applicant has not filed any document to prove this contention.

¶7

On the other hand, the respondent bank has also not filed any evidence to prove the delivery of the sale notice to the applicant well within the time. Similarly no evidence for the publication and affixation of the sale notice has been filed on behalf of the respondent. However, at page nO.20 & 21 of the counter affidavit the copies of the sale intimation letter and the sale certificate have been filed.

¶8

Ld. counsel for the auction purchaser has submitted that there is no fault on behalf of the auction purchaser as the auction purchaser has deposited entire amount for the sale consideration as per the law well within the time prescribed.

¶9

Although there are many discrepancies and irregularities in the SARFAESI Action as apparent from the counter affidavit itself but since the guarantor Arjun Singh as the name appears in the demand notice filed by the respondent bank with counter affidavit at page no.07 indicates that Mr. Arjun Singh was partner and guarantor for the loan in question. As such the dispute in this present SARFAESI Application cannot be effectively decided without affording an opportunity of hearing to the legal heirs of the aforesaid guarantor. n / .. ,.J..('

¶10

Contd.3

¶11

	In such circumstances, despite of these aforesaid irregularities no relief can be granted to the applicant. The SARFAESI Application deserves
17.07.2025	to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website. Patna / v.1"Y~ \7' (Kaushalendra Yadav) Presiding Officer

Ms Ramna Construction v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ramna Construction v. Indian Bank

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Singh versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S Baba Trading Company

Canara Bank versus Sh Harkirat Singh Dhillon

Punjab National Bank versus Gurdeep Singh

Joy Thomas versus Uco Bank

Navasudeen S versus Uco Bank