Dismissed

Jai Malhar Enterprises v. Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank

DRT14 Oct 2025SA/3/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a composite securitisation application filed by two borrowers challenging SARFAESI proceedings initiated by their bank. The court held that the applicants could not combine separate cases for distinct loan accounts and that the possession notice was legally issued.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No.03/2023 dismissed with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Jai Malhar Enterprises versus Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 31.12.2022 Registered on: 04.01.2023 Decided on: 14.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 09 14

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J.R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.03/2023

¶3

M/s. Jai Malhar Enterprises, through its Proprietor, Pandurang S/o Nana Kolhe, Age 50 Years, Occu : Business, R/o. Gajanannagar, Geori, Tq. Georai, District : Beed.

¶4

M/s. Jai Malhar Collection, through its Proprietor, Bhagitra W/o Pandurang Kolhe, Age 46 Years, … Applicants

¶5

Occu : Business, R/o. Gajanannagar, Georai, Tq. Georai, District : Beed.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Authorized Officer,Mr. Pralhad Rajurkar, Purnavadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, (which terms includes its successors and assigns), having its office at 2-11286, Mali Ves, Subhash Road, Beed.

¶8

Branch Manager, Purnavadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Branch Gevrai District. Beed 431127

¶9

Archana Vishnu Pankhade, C/o. Hotel Viraj Jalna Gevrai Road, Tq.

¶10

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 1 of 12

¶11

Gevrai Dist. Beed. 431127

¶12

Keshav Sahebrao Anterkar, C/o. New Maharaja Auto Parts Beed – Jalna Road, Tq. Gevrai Dist. Beed ****

¶13

431127 … Respondents

¶14

APPEARANCES For the Applicants For Respondent No.1 & 2 For Respondent Nos.3 and 4

¶15

Mr. A.L. Muley - Advocate Mr. Milind M. Patil – Advocate None

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 14^th October, 2025)

¶17

This Securitization Application No.03/2023 has filed by both the applicants against the respondents with averments that the applicant No.1 and 2 are husband and wife and they jointly executed the mortgage deed in favour of the respondent bank (Respondent Nos.1 and 2) as they raised total loan of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs only) each for running their business in the year 2020. The applicants created charge over their residential house in the name of the applicant No.1 namely Pandurang S/o Nana Kolhe, House No.573/75, admeasuring 30 X 25 ft.

¶18

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 2 of 12

¶19

(total 750 Sq. Ft.) alongwith construction thereon and Plot No.01, situated at Gevrai Nagar Parishad Survey No.555/B, Plot No.1, House No.3624, admeasuring 87.5 Sq. ft. X 25 ft. (total 203.29 Sq. Mtrs.) and this plot was belonging to applicant No.2 namely Bhagitra W/o Pandurang Kolhe and applicant No.2 namely Bhagitra W/o Pandurang Kolhe also created security in favour of the bank by mortgaging Plot No.14, House No.3623, Survey No.555/B, admeasuring 74.34 Sq. ft. situated at Georai Nagar Parishad.

¶20

Mr. Pandurang S/o Nana Kolhe is Proprietor of M/s. Jai Malhar Enterprises whereas the Bhagitra W/o Pandurang Kolhe is the Proprietor of applicant No.2 M/s. Jai Malhar Collection. The applicants could not repay the installments regularly to the respondent bank due to some financial crisis and the loan account was become Non-Performing Asset on 31.03.2022.

¶21

It is further submitted that all of sudden, the business of the applicant No.2 in the name and style of M/s. Jai Malhar Collection was collapsed as the shop was burnt due to fire on 14.01.2021. The Applicant No.2 suffered loss of Rs.1,88,03,950/- (Rupees One Crore, Eighty-Eight Lacs, Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty only) and

¶22

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 3 of 12

¶23

lodged report to concern MIDC Waluj Police Station on 16.01.2021. The fire was caused due to short circuit in between 11.00 A.M. to 12.00 P.M. on 15.01.2021 wherein the loss of Rs.1.69 Crores was caused to the applicant No.2. The police prepared spot panchanama of the incident on 16.01.2021. Fire Report was also given by the Fire Station Officer, Aurangabad Division on 15.01.2021. It is further submitted that the Applicant No.1 has lodged complaint with Georai Police Station under Section 420, 406 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the Officer of the respondent bank and Officer of Insurance Company as the policy was issued on 28.10.2020 after a lapse of four months whereas insurance amount was paid on 14.06.2020 and in this manner, the respondent bank and the insurance company has cheated the applicants. The Georai Police Station has registered the offence against the bank officer and the officer of the insurance company vide FIR No.337/2022 on 02.07.2022 under Section 420, 406 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

It is further submitted that applicant No.2 has filed Consumer Complaint before the Consumer Redressal Commission, Aurangabad for getting compensation of incident of fire which is still pending. The respondent bank

¶25

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 4 of 12

¶26

has issued notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 05.07.2022 and the same was published in daily Zunjar Neta but the said notices were not served upon the applicants. Thereafter notice dated 20.12.2022 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was served upon the applicants for possession scheduled on 04.01.2023. The proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under the provision of the SARFAESI Act is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and possession notice dated 20.12.2022 is liable to be set aside. The applicant further prayed for interim relief restraining the respondents from taking possession of the secured asset and to allow the present Securitisation Application.

¶27

The respondent bank filed its reply Exhibit-7 alleging therein that present applicant Nos.1 and 2 being the respective borrowers to separately sanctioned loan accounts and both the applicants are challenging two separate notices dated 20.12.2022 issued by the respondent bank and such composite challenge by applicant Nos.1 and 2 in the single Securitisation Application is not tenable.

¶28

It is further submitted that the respondent bank has sanctioned Rs.10,00,000/.- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) as Cash

¶29

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 5 of 12

¶30

Credit facility and Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) as Tem Loan to M/s. Jai Malhar Enterprises of which Mr. Pandurang S/o Nana Kolhe is sole proprietor and the said Term Loan was disbursed on 24.06.2020. Both the loan accounts earmarked as NPA Account with effect from 31.03.2022. The respondent bank through its Authorised Officer had issued notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 05.07.2022 thereby demanding Rs.12,76,738/-, for Term, Loan + Rs.10,50,618.60Ps. due in Cash Credit Loan and also interest on the said aggregate amount for total Rs.23,27,356.60Ps. with effect from 01.07.2022. Said notice dated 05.07.2022 was sent to borrower, guarantors and mortgagors and the same were duly served. The Authorised Officer of the respondent bank had published said Demand Notice in daily newspaper on 22.07.2022. In the like manner, the respondent bank sanctioned Rs.10,00,000/- Cash Credit and Rs.15,00,000/- as Term Loan to M/s. Jai Malhar Collection of which Bhagitra W/o Pandurang Kolhe is the sole Proprietor and this loan account earmarked as NonPerforming Asset w.e.f. 11.05.2021. The respondent bank issued demand notice to applicant No.2 under section 13(2)

¶31

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 6 of 12

¶32

of SARFAESI Act on 05.07.2022 demanding total amount of Rs.28,32,475.60Ps. The demand notice was duly served upon the borrower, guarantors and mortgagors and this demand notice was also published in daily newspaper on 22.07.2022.

¶33

It is further alleged that fire accident took place in the shop of Jai Malhar Collection and fire was caused due to short circuit etc. The applicant No.1 lodged complaint with the oblique motive to harass and pressurize the bank official so that they could not take any steps for recovery of the loans due from the borrowers and guarantors. In fact, the bank had forwarded the premium amount of the bank and insurance on 24.06.2020 vide UTR No.N176201167502985. There was no role of the bank except to forward the premium amount of the insurance to the Insurance Company and the same was done by the Insurance Company promptly and in settlement of Insurance Claim of applicant No.2, no role is attributed to the bank. Notice of possession dated 20.12.2022 was properly issued by the Authorised Officer of the bank by following due procedure of law. The respondent bank has no concern with the complaint filed before the Consumer Redressal

¶34

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 7 of 12

¶35

Commission, Aurangabad by the applicant No.2. The possession notice is proper and legal. The respondent bank denied other allegations of the application and dismissal of the same was prayed for.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record thoroughly and carefully. My findings are as under:-

¶37

FINDINGS

¶38

Before proceeding further, it may be noted here that Pandurang S/o Nana Kolhe is the Proprietor of M/s. Jai Malhar Enterprises whereas his wife namely Bhagitra is the Proprietor of applicant No.2 M/s. Jai Malhar Collection. It is also submitted that applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 raised loan of Rs.10,00,000/- as Cash Credit and Rs.15,00,000/- as Term Loan from the respondent bank in the year 2020 meaning thereby both the applicants availed loan of Rs.25,00,000/- each for running their business. It is also admitted that the applicants have created security in favour of the respondent bank by mortgaging their immovable properties as detailed in Paragraph No.5.1 of the Securitisation Application.

¶39

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 8 of 12

¶40

The loan account of the applicant No.1 was declared NPA on 31.03.2022 and loan account of the applicant No.2 was declared as NPA on 11.05.2021. The demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act separately issued to the applicant No.1 and 2 on 05.07.2022 when the applicants failed to repay the demanded amount within 60 days. Thereafter possession notice dated 20.12.2022 was issued to the applicants.

¶41

Admittedly, fire has been caused in the shop of applicant No.2 due to short circuit and insurance claim submitted by the applicant No.2 was rejected by the Insurance Company namely Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Mumbai vide letter dated 26.02.2022 on various grounds and main ground for rejection was; there was no possibility of occurrence of electrical short circuit in the samples collected from the loss site and further initiation of fire by only matchstick and heat / ignition source would result in fire in this case. Meaning thereby the fire would have initiated due to externally introduced ignition source like matchstick or the like at multiple points at rear side of insured premises. Therefore, the claim of the applicant No.2 was repudiated on the basis of survey report of the Insurance

¶42

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 9 of 12

¶43

Company and more-so the insurance company has not denied the insurance of the shop of the applicant No.2. Against the rejection of the claim, the applicant No.2 has moved to the Consumer Redressal Commission, Aurangabad. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Criminal Proceedings initiated against the officers of the Insurance Company has been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court vide Order dated 05.08.2025 passed in Criminal Application No.1286/2023. This order of the Hon’ble High Court reflects that officials of the insurance company do not attract any criminal liability in this case.

¶44

It may be noted here that as regards the loan of applicant No.1 M/s. Jai Malhar Enterprises, nothing has been alleged under the application for non-payment of the loan account when this firm is running properly and doing business but the applicant No.1 has taken the shelter for non-payment of the loan account that the shop of the applicant No.2 was burnt in fire which was different firm raised separate loan for running the business. Therefore, the applicant No.1 has no ground to challenge the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the bank. Separate demand notices dated 05.07.2022 have been issued to applicant No.1 as well as applicant No.2

¶45

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 10 of 12

¶46

and NPA date of both the loans is different. The applicants have alleged in Securitisation Application, as such, only one demand notice has been issued by the respondent bank. Therefore, the composite Securitisation Application for challenging the demand notices of both the loan account of different firms is not sustainable.

¶47

The present Securitisation Application was filed before this Tribunal on 31.12.2022 but thereafter no efforts has been made by the applicants to settle the loan account. Even no amount has been paid by the applicants to show their willingness to settle the accounts with the respondent bank. Further, the applicant No.1 cannot take any shelter due to the fire taken place in the shop of the applicant No.2 who has a quite different and separate entity. This Tribunal vide Order dated 04.01.2023 ordered to maintain status quo with further direction to applicants to take instruction of making payment to the respondent bank. In the garb of this status quo order, the applicants have not made any effort for making payment to the respondent bank which is a public money and recovery of the same is necessary to maintain the banking liquidity in the system. Therefore, the applicant No.1 cleverly filed this Securitisation Application joined

¶48

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 11 of 12

¶49

with the applicant No.2 for taking shelter of the fire of the shop of the applicant No.2 which is apparently not sustainable. Since Proprietor of both the applicant firms are husband and wife and they have no ground for staying the impugned possession notice dated 20.12.2022. Hence, present Securitisation Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

For the reasons recorded above, the present Securitisation Application No.03/2023 is liable to be dismissed.

¶51

In view of above observations, I pass the following order.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(A) Securitisation Application No.03/2023 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶54

(B) Accordingly, all the pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stands disposed of in terms of the present judgment.

¶55

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

Pronounced in open Sd/Court. (Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Date : 14.10.2025. Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶58

[SBJ] (SA No.03/2023) Page 12 of 12

Jai Malhar Enterprises v. Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Malhar Enterprises v. Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari 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

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Aviraj Arun Marathe

Punjab National Bank versus M/s. Jay Tuljabhavani Stone Crusher

Union Bank of India versus Bhatu Soma Wankhede

State Bank of India versus Jayant Ravindra Gajare

State Bank of India versus Chandrakant Ramdas Khule

State Bank of India versus Kalyan Manohar Patange