Partly allowed

Vansh Enterprises v. Bank of Baroda

DRT15 Jul 2025SA/233/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal set aside an e-auction sale due to non-compliance with the notice period under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules and alleged fraud regarding newspaper publication dates. The bank was directed to deposit proceeds and allow for a fresh auction.

What did the court decide?

The auction sale dated 28.07.2022 is set aside. The respondent bank is directed to deposit sale proceeds with 10% interest within 30 days and is permitted to conduct a fresh auction.

Date of order or proceeding	Order with the Signature of the Court	Office action taken with date
15.07.2025	SA 233 of 2022 Vansh Enterprises Vs. Bank of Baroda Ld. counsels for the parties are present. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the entire SARFAESI Action including the e-auction sale is vitiated by the non- compliance of the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act especially with regards to the e-auction sale dated 28.07.2022. It has been further submitted that the auction sale notice was admittedly issued on 28.06.2022 and it has been received by wife of the applicant on the same day i.e. 28.06.2022 wherein the date of auction sale was fixed for 28.07.2022. By calculating the days thereafter the date of auction sale falls on exactly on so" day without excluding the day of receiving, issuance or the date of auction sale that those beyond the intention and disrespect of the provisions under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2022. It requires 30 clear days gap from the service of notice to auction. Further it has been submitted that the publication of the aforesaid auction sale notice was made in the Kolkata edition of "Business Standard" Hindi and English editions while the property is situated at Bihar.Ithas been further submitted that "Business Standard" is not a newspaper that is likely to be read over by the common public of the locality where the property situates. Moreover the newspaper "Business Standard" may be a very common or popular newspaper for the business community only but it is not the newspaper to be read by common people. So the circulation of newspaper in a particular section of the society will not serve the purpose of the Act &Rules made for the SARFAESI Action.Itis equally surprising& strange to note that in the paper publication the date of sending instructions to the publisher for the publication of the aforesaid notice is 23.06.2022 and that notice was published on 25.06.2022 i.e. 03 days prior to the issuance of the notice. It appears that either there is some manipulation of the dates or the notice was sent for publication without its issuance as a result of fraud or collusion. That makes the publication illegal and irregular. Ld. counsel for the respondeltexiPlains th may be human error \ (	Contd.2

Date
of
order
or
proceeding

Order with the
Signature of the Court

Office action
taken with
date

15.07.2025

SA 233 of 2022
Vansh Enterprises
Vs.
Bank of Baroda
Ld. counsels for the parties are present.
It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the entire
SARFAESI Action including the e-auction sale is vitiated by the non-
compliance of the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act especially
with regards to the e-auction sale dated 28.07.2022. It has been further
submitted that the auction sale notice was admittedly issued on 28.06.2022
and it has been received by wife of the applicant on the same day i.e.
28.06.2022 wherein the date of auction sale was fixed for 28.07.2022. By
calculating the days thereafter the date of auction sale falls on exactly on
so" day without excluding the day of receiving, issuance or the date of
auction sale that those beyond the intention and disrespect of the provisions
under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2022.
It
requires 30 clear days gap from the service of notice to auction. Further it
has been submitted that the publication of the aforesaid auction sale notice
was made in the Kolkata edition of "Business Standard" Hindi and English
editions while the property is situated at Bihar.Ithas been further submitted
that "Business Standard" is not a newspaper that is likely to be read over by
the common public of the locality where the property situates. Moreover the
newspaper "Business Standard" may be a very common or popular
newspaper for the business community only but it is not the newspaper to
be read by common people. So the circulation of newspaper in a particular
section of the society will not serve the purpose of the Act &Rules made
for the SARFAESI Action.Itis equally surprising& strange to note that in
the paper publication the date of sending instructions to the publisher for the
publication of the aforesaid notice is 23.06.2022 and that notice was
published on 25.06.2022 i.e. 03 days prior to the issuance of the notice. It
appears that either there is some manipulation of the dates or the notice was
sent for publication without its issuance as a result of fraud or collusion.
That makes the publication illegal and irregular.
Ld. counsel for the respondeltexiPlains th
may be human error
\
(

Contd.2

	with respect to the instructions for the auction notice as the intended notice as annexure "10" of the counter affidavit at page no.47 is a composite
15.07.2025	notice for the 21 Accounts in total. As it is admitted that it is a composite notice, further indicates that the respondent bank has acted with the irregularity without intending the notice to be made public to all prospective buyers in order to attract maximum prospective buyers fetch the maximum value of the property and it is not possible to public the auction sale notice in question on 23.06.2022 when it was not in existence at all. Itindicates kind of collusion, forgery and fraud either in the publication letter or in the notice allegedly have been issued on 28.06.2022. In view of the aforesaid facts, the auction sale in question vitiates. Accordingly, the auction sale dated 28.07.2022 is hereby set-aside. The respondent bank is directed to tender the amount of sale consideration to the auction purchaser alongwith 10% simple interest within 30 days and the auction purchaser will hand over the physical possession of the property to the respondent bank within 30 days thereafter, if handed over the possession to the auction purchaser. In case the auction purchaser does not hand over the physical possession within 30 days the auction purchaser will not be entitled for interest. The respondent bank will be free to continue with the auction sale afresh. V / W--)\p Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website. Patna (Kaushalendra Yadav) Presiding Officer

with respect to the instructions for the auction notice as the intended notice
as annexure "10"
of the counter affidavit at page no.47 is a composite

15.07.2025

notice for the 21 Accounts in total.
As it is admitted that it is a composite notice, further indicates that
the respondent bank has acted with the irregularity without intending the
notice to be made public to all prospective buyers in order to attract
maximum prospective buyers fetch the maximum value of the property and
it is not possible to public the auction sale notice in question on 23.06.2022
when it was not in existence at all. Itindicates kind of collusion, forgery
and fraud either in the publication letter or in the notice allegedly have been
issued on 28.06.2022.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the auction sale in question vitiates.
Accordingly, the auction sale dated 28.07.2022 is hereby set-aside.
The respondent bank is directed to tender the amount of sale
consideration to the auction purchaser alongwith 10% simple interest within
30 days and the auction purchaser will hand over the physical possession of
the property to the respondent bank within 30 days thereafter, if handed
over the possession to the auction purchaser. In case the auction purchaser
does not hand over the physical possession within 30 days the auction
purchaser will not be entitled for interest.
The respondent bank will be free to continue with the auction sale
afresh.
V
/
W--)\p
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website.
Patna
(Kaushalendra Yadav)
Presiding Officer

Vansh Enterprises v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vansh Enterprises v. Bank of Baroda

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

State Bank of India versus Smt. Soni Singh

Central Bank of India versus M/s Garden Enterprises

Ms Sheetal Copy Udyog versus Central Bank of India

Mr Prasanto Ghosh versus Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India)

Sudheer C G versus Union Bank of India

Diwakar Kumar versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank