Allowed

Ms Rinku Agriculture Farm v. the Citizen Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT22 May 2025SA/240/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant sought to set aside an auction fixed for 17.03.2025 regarding properties where the Respondent Bank had failed to create security interest registration. Reliance was placed on a Gauhati High Court judgment holding auction invalid without such registration. The Tribunal set aside the auction but allowed the bank to initiate fresh SARFAESI action.

What did the court decide?

The auction fixed for 17.03.2025 was set aside. The application was allowed. Fresh SARFAESI action remains permissible.

Ms Rinku Agriculture Farm versus the Citizen Co-Operative… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, CHANDIGARH

¶2

MA/55/2025 IN SA/240/2024 MS RINKU AGRICULTURE FARM Vs THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

¶3

22.05.2025 Item No.100

¶4

Present : Mr. J.S.. Sodhi, Counsel for the Applicant (on VC). Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Counsel for respondent bank (on VC)

¶5

Registrar has put up this matter before me.

¶6

Heard on MA No.55/2025 in SA/240/2024, for correction in the name of the proprietor and rnortgagor in the order dated 15.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal. Mr. Rajotia, states that the application may be alIQwed subject to all just exception.

¶7

Accordingly, I hereby allow the application, subject to all just exception. The Court master is hereby directed to make the necessary correction in the order dated 15.03.2025 and correct the name of "KuIbhushan Aggarwal as Bharat Bhushan in 8th line" and name of "Smt. . Shikha Aggarwal as Smt. Shelly Aggarwal in 15tt1 line" of the order. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

¶8

Pronounced in open court.

DRT-1,^a

PANKA}

G// i q~

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶14

¶15

SA/240/2024 MS RINKU AGRICULTURE FARb4 Vs THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

¶16

15.©3.2©25 Item No.7

¶17

Present :

¶18

Sh. J S Sodhi, Counsel for the Applicant. Sh. Arvind Rajotia, Counsel for respondent bank alongwith Sh.Padam, Manager.

¶19

it is stated that the respondent bank has fixed the auction of & Ia1b1Er J p :or: : ePr= P :SIrIE11je; /k :Ta 1: 7iT i: : : : ; I:Fta:fd t :T : :t =u LtP :TIP;J: : : gorE: 4{(Mr M( g?' one is house; one is shop and another is 150 marlas of Plot. Mr.JS =Tg1EgJ:f) #3% ]!)DIIr J f :o dvTI iI :: : u : = r :o :st h:o nT:rE:: ti ir Psu Ifih= = :aFL ::IS :: TH : t:: '::;iii::;::':’::"’-=.'’.’=:„::,::':.:''’::' gI!!)!::: /bAJ I ):i 1 : :eor:: t oY a:h : r eba: : : :/ L i : i = =e: PEEL : jte : : / ihT a=7oil : 1 \q B b : := {=: ;6 S;( L]qJobLrt J' hb ise–ink-ship fiLIiI'Ihb ise–ink-ship fiLIiI'Iise–ink-ship fiLIiI'IfiLIiI'I 'b':' :';“'',.'.;„;.:*::; That That apart, Mr.Sodhi, J:.T:„;,,;:f argues argues that there is no CERSAI

¶20

;6 S;( L]qJobLrt J' hb ise–ink-ship fiLIiI'Ihb ise–ink-ship fiLIiI'Iise–ink-ship fiLIiI'IfiLIiI'I :';“'',.'.;„;.:::; That That apart, argues that there registration in respect of all these properties. The respect of all these properties. The of all these properties. The properties. The The bank had created $,rW+security interest on 26.07.2024. Prior to that, bank had issued the

¶21

That apart, Mr.Sodhi, J:.T:„;,,;:f argues argues that there is no CERSAI registration in respect of all these properties. The respect of all these properties. The of all these properties. The properties. The The bank had created security interest on 26.07.2024. Prior to that, bank had issued the notice under Section 13(4) on 06.04.2024. Mr.Sodhi has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'bIe Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.182 of 2019, titled Goverdhan Prasad Atal versus Assam Gramin Vikas Bank and another, decided on 02.06.2020, 2021 AIR (Gauhati) 47, wherein the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has held that without security interest registration, the property could not be put up for auction.

¶22

jMf1 taff WiZ#

¶23

In view of this, the auction fixed up for 17.03,2025 is herebY set aside. The present SA is allowed. However, it is made clear that this order would not debar the bank from initiating fresh SARFAESI action as per law.

¶24

¶25

File be consigned to the record room after due coY&\pliance- /

¶26

Pronounced in open court. MANOJ

Ms Rinku Agriculture Farm v. the Citizen Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Rinku Agriculture Farm v. the Citizen Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Hari Shiv Shakti Stone Crushing Co.

Punjab National Bank versus Ms. Ruchi Dawar

State Bank of India versus Shri Aditya Pappu

Ms Rinku Agriculture Farm versus the Citizen Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Ms Bhushan Trading Co. versus the Citizens Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Seema Sharma versus State Bank of India