The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application filed by an applicant challenging a sale certificate issued pursuant to a prior order, holding that the appropriate remedy for the impugned measures was an appeal before the DRAT.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATNA
| Date of order or proceeding |
Order with the Signature of the Court |
|---|---|
| 25.07.2025 | SA 24 of 2022 |
| SA 24 of 2022 Meenu Sharma Vs. CanaraBank Ld. counsels for the parties are present. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the present SARFAESI Application has been filed challenging the sale certificate issued in the SARFAESI Action and this subsequent SARFAESI application has been field in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Ld. counsel for the respondent bank.submits that the present SA is not maintainable as the applicant moved before Hon'ble High Court for challenging the auction sale but he was directed by Hon'ble High Court to approach the appropriate forum for suitable remedy. It is not out of place to mention here that vide order dated 09.01.2012 the SARFAESI Application was disposed of giving a liberty to the applicant to raise the grievances before the authorized officer by filing a representation and if he is still aggrieved from the order of the authorized officer, he may approach the |
|---|
| Tribunal again. Thereafter the applicant has moved the MA 146 of 2012 which was decided on 24.07.2012. Thereafter another MA has been moved |
| by the applicant numbered as MA 554 of 2012. That MA was disposed off vide order dated 23.07.2013. Inthat order it has been observed that by that time the auction sale of the secured assets was made but the sale certificate was not issued. Itwas directed that on receipt of the calculation regarding the due amount and the interest imposed by the aforesaid order the applicant was required to pay the same within one month and also he was required to |
| file an undertaking to withdraw the cases filed against the bank. officer, if |
| any. It was also made clear that if the applicant fails to pay the amount as per calculation the bank may issue sale certificate in favor of the auction purchaser. As per the contention of the present SARFAESI Application after passing this above order the sale certificate was issued which was challenged before Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has |
| gnevances. issued the direction to approach the appropriate forum against the |
| Office action |
|---|
| taken with date |
Contd.2
{SA 24 of2022}
25.07.2025
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the main grievance of the applicant relates to the measures of the auction sale which has been conducted in pursuance of the order passed by this Tribunal and the sale certificate bas been issued in pursuance of the order dated 23.07.2013. Hence, the appropriate remedy to assail these orders was available by way of filing an ~ppeal before Hon'ble DRAT. In that case fresh SARF AESI Application is not maintainable.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website.
Patna
(Kaushalendra Yadav) Presiding Officer
Meenu Sharma
Canara Bank
Kaushalendra Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
