Allowed

Ms Pyasa Plastic Industries and others v. State Bank of India

DRT23 Jul 2025SA/237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a securitization application to quash SARFAESI proceedings. The court held that since the bank failed to rebut allegations of non-service of statutory notices and defective service on certain respondents via WhatsApp, the action was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The entire SARFAESI Action initiated by the Respondent Bank against the applicants is set aside.

Ms Pyasa Plastic Industries and others versus State Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DRT,PATNA

¶2

SA 237 of 2024 [J]

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶4

Presiding Officer: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶5

SA- 237 of 2024

¶6

1. MIS Pyasa Plastic Industries (Borrowers), Proprietor, Sri Pawan Kumar Da1da1i, P.O-Kadam Kuan, Town & District-Patna.

¶7

Pawan Kumar (Proprietor Pyasa Plastic Industries), Son of Late Laxman Sah, Tulsi Bhawan, Daldali Road, P.S-Kadamkuan, Town & District-Patna

¶8

Raj Kumar(Guarantor), Son of Late Laxman Sah, Tulsi Bhawan, Daldali Road, P.S-Kadamkuan, Town & District -Patna

¶9

............... APPLICANTS

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Bank Of India (Erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Ashok Rajpath Branch, Ashok Rajpath, P.S - Pirbhore, Town & District Patna, Through Its Branch Manager.

¶12

The Branch Manager ,State Bank of India (Erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Ashok Rajpath Branch, Ashok Rajpath, P.S -Pirbhore, Town & District - Patna

¶13

The Authorised Officer ,State Bank of India(Erstwhile State of Bikaner & Jaipur), Ashok Rajpath Branch, Ashok Rajpath, P.S -Pirbhore, Town & District-Patna

¶14

Binod Kumar (Guarantor) Son of Late Laxman Sah, Sapphire Industry Plastic Factory, Behind Mona Cinema, Bakerganj, P.S- Pirbahore, Town & District- Patna

¶15

Vijay Kumar (Guarantor), Son of Late Laxman Sah, Sapphire Industry Plastic Factory, Behind Mona Cinema, Bakerganj, P.S-Pirabhore, Town & District- Patna

¶16

Gayatri Shankar (Legal Heir of Murari Shankar), W/o Late Murari Shankar, Behind Mona Cinema, Bakerganj, P.S Pirbahore, Town & District-Patna

¶17

Ashish Shankar (Legal Heir of Murari Shankar), Son of Late Murari Shankar, Behind Mona Cinema, Bakerganj, P.S -Pirabhore, Town & District- Patna

¶18

................. RESPO NDENTS

¶19

Presents;

¶20

For the Applicant For the Respondent 1 to 3 For Respondent No.4 & 5 For Respondent No.6 & 7

¶21

Sh. Praveen kumar, Advocate Sh. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Sh. Manish Kishore, Advocate None

¶22

Dated: 23.07.2025

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The present application has been filed with a prayer 'to quash the entire SARFAESI action, the possession notice dated 10.10.2013 issued under Section 13(4) of the

¶25

DRT,PATNA

¶26

SA 237 of 2024 [J]

¶27

SARFAESI Act, and further to grant compensation under Section 19 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicants are the principal borrower

¶29

as well as guarantors in the loan account in question. The loan was initially availed from the State Bank: of Bikaner and Jaipur by Mis Pyasa Plastic Industries. Subsequently, due to amalgamation, the said bank:was acquired by the State Bank:of India. Due to default in repayment of the loan amount, the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NP A) on 07.03.2006, and the bank:initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing a demand notice dated 02.08.2013 under Section 13(2), followed by a possession notice dated 07.10.2013 under Section 13(4). Aggrieved by the said possession notice, the applicants have filed the present Securitization Application (SA).

¶30

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that Mis Pyasa Plasti Industries, engaged in the plastic business, had availed a cash credit loan from the erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. After full repayment, the account was closed in 1988. However, in 2013, the applicant came to know through a relative that the defendant bank had published a possession notice dated 07.10.2013. The applicant immediately approached the Ashok Rajpath Branch of state bank:of India (erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur) seeking loan details and a statement of account. Despite repeated requests, no documents were provided; instead, the applicant was asked to deposit ~3,18,678/- to avoid auction. To prevent third-party interest, the applicant deposited ~3,00,000/- in total. It is submitted that the applicant never received any demand notice dated 02.08.2013 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act or the possession notice dated 10.10.2013. It is also submitted that after multiple written requests, including under the RTI Act, were made to the bank, but no documents were supplied. The bank repeatedly stated that the records were unavailable as they were beyond the retention period. To challenge the possession notice, the applicant also filed CWJC No. 23292 of2013, which was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

¶31

Despite filing the Vakalatnama and appearing through counsel, respondent nos. 1to 5 have not filed any counter affidavit either in support of or in rebuttal to the claim of the applicant.

¶32

It isto be noted that the service report in respect of Respondents No.6 and 7, who are the legal heirs of Murarai Shankar (the guarantor), is not proper. Initially, the summons sent through post were returned to the senderand;:;7d at the

¶33

~/ ,,y') "Y"

¶34

DRT,PATNA

¶35

SA 237 of 2024 [J]

¶36

addresses. Subsequently, service was attempted through electronic means, specifically via WhatsApp. Service through WhatsApp is neither authenticated nor accepted as a valid mode of service. Therefore, service upon Respondents No.6 and 7 cannot be treated as duly effected.

¶37

I have heard learned counsels of both parties and gone through the records.

¶38

It is alleged by the applicants that the respondent bank neither served the demand notice dated 02.08.2013 nor the possession notice dated 07.10.2013. It is further alleged that, despite multiple requests, the bank did not provide any documents related to the loan to the applicants.

¶39

Regarding the allegations made by the applicants, the respondent bank has not filed any counter affidavit. Therefore, the allegations remain undisputed.

¶40

In view of the above discussion as the allegation with respect to non delivery of demand notice and possession notice go unrebutted, present Securitization application succeeds and deserves to be allowed with costs.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The application SA 237 of 2024 filed by MIS Pyasa Plastic Industries and Ors, is allowed. The entire SARFAESI Action initiated by respondent Bank against applicants is hereby set aside.

¶43

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶44

Presiding Officer

¶45

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶46

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 23 RD Day ~ of July, 2024. ")/0

")/0 \1-./)

[KaushalendraYadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Ms Pyasa Plastic Industries and others v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Pyasa Plastic Industries and others v. State Bank of India

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

Manik Roy and another versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Balvir Singh

Uco Bank versus M/S Aloft Trucking Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Tushar Kanti Das versus Murshidabad District Central Co-Operative Bank

Ms Remission Diagnostic and Poly Clinic Center and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India)

Rina Rai and Others versus Idbi Bank