Allowed

Maheswari a v. Punjab National Bank

DRT19 Jun 2025SA/250/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal set aside a sale of secured property and proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as the bank proceeded with the auction after a High Court granted relief by permitting payment of dues in installments, and failed to strictly comply with mandatory notice requirements.

What did the court decide?

The sale of item No.2 property and the proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were set aside. The bank is directed to return auction money with interest to the purchaser.

Maheswari a versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2025

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.250/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

Maheswari A., W/o.late Sajulal, R/o.Sreenilayam, Meenathucheri, Kavanad P.O., Kollam – 691 003. …Applicant And

¶7

Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra Centre, Vaishnavi Towers, Bye Pass Road, Kumarichantha, Ambalathara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 026, Represented by the Authorised Officer. ...Defendant

¶8

Saibudeen Babu S., S/o.Muhammed Shareef, Saibu Nivas, House No.821, Thamarakulam, Kollam – 691 001. ...Additional 2^nd defendant

¶9

[Additional 2^nd defendant was impleaded as per order dated 10.06.2024 in IA No.2237/2024]

¶10

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶11

27.05.2025 in the presence of Advocates M/s.Shrihari and Mary

¶12

Nithiya K.J. for the applicant, Advocates M/s.C.Ajith Kumar,

¶13

SA 250/2024

¶14

¶15

Rajeevu L.G. and Varsha S.S. for the defendant bank and Advocates M/s.E.A.Bijumon and Sreehari V. for the additional 2^nd defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶16

F I N A L O R D E R

¶17

Challenging the sale notice issued by the defendant bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’), the applicant/guarantor has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act with a prayer to set aside the sale of the secured asset including all securitization measures taken by the defendant.

¶18

Brief facts of the case :

¶19

2.1 The applicant stood as guarantor for the loan availed by one Sundaram from the defendant bank by creating security interest over the following three items of properties:-

¶20

(i) 1.21 Ares of property comprised in Sy.No.101/4, 101/2/3 and 101/3/3,

¶21

(ii) 2.25 Ares of land and building comprised in Sy.No.21/118 and

¶22

(iii) 11.34 Ares of land comprised in Re-Sy.No.97/6-2 of Kollam East Village, Kollam District.

¶23

SA 250/2024

¶24

¶25

Due to the default by the borrower, the loan was classified as NPA on 23.06.2022 and demand notice was issued by the defendant marked Annexure-A1 to the borrower as well as the present applicant/guarantor. Due to non-repayment of the dues by the borrower, the defendant issued possession notice under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 07.10.2022 followed by issuing Annexure-A3 sale notice dated 05.06.2023 for e-auction of the aforesaid three items of properties fixing the date of auction on 06.07.2023. The reserve price for three items of properties are fixed as follows:-

¶26

(i) Rs.41.10 lakhs for item No.1 property (ii) Rs.41.40 lakhs for item No.2 property (iii) Rs.91.04 lakhs for item No.3 property

¶27

2.2. The applicant challenged the said sale notice before the

¶28

Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.32438/2023 which was disposed by a judgment dated 06.10.2023 marked Annexure-A4 permitting the applicant to pay the loan in instalments. Again, the applicant filed IA No.1/2023 in W.P.(C) No.32438/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court seeking extension of time to deposit of 1^st and 2^nd instalments which was allowed and the time for payment was extended up to 18.12.2023 with a direction to continue to make the payment in accordance with the earlier judgment. Thereafter, the

¶29

SA 250/2024

¶30

¶31

applicant filed another IA No.1/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court for extension of time to deposit the 3^rd instalment which was extended till 22.01.2024.

¶32

2.3. The defendant issued fresh sale notice dated 06.01.2024 marked Annexure-A6 fixing the sale date on 24.01.2024 in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 properties as described above at a reserve price of Rs.40.30 lakhs and Rs.41.20 lakhs respectively. The applicant filed IA No.4/2024 in the earlier writ petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court in which it was ordered on 22.03.2024 that further proceedings pursuant to the sale initiated against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. It is not out of place to mention here that in pursuance to the sale notice, one item of property i.e., 2^nd item of property of an extent of 2.25 Ares of land was sold and the additional 2^nd defendant is the successful bidder in such sale. Thereafter, the defendant issued another sale notice marked Annexure-A12 dated 12.03.2024 in respect of two other items of properties but the sale did not fructify. The applicant has filed this SA challenging such sale notice as well as earlier measures taken by the defendant and sought relief to set aside the same.

¶33

SA 250/2024

¶34

¶35

2.4. During pendency of the SA, the defendant approached the CJM, Kollam in MC No.544/2023 in the proceeding under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of three items of properties. Learned CJM passed an order dated 07.09.2023 marked Annexure-A20 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured assets. Such measure is also challenged by the applicant in this proceeding by amending the SA on various grounds with a prayer to set aside such proceeding.

¶36

3.1. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments and contended that initially the borrower availed cash credit limit of Rs.40 lakhs on 14.03.2017 and the applicant stood as guarantor for the loan by mortgaging three items of properties. Later the cash credit facility was enhanced to Rs.80 lakhs on 14.09.2017 and the security interest created by the applicant was extended to secure the enhanced limit. The borrower has also availed a covid loan of Rs.8 lakhs on 10.06.2020. Due to the default committed by the borrower, the loan was classified as NPA on 23.06.2022 and demand notice was issued calling the borrower and

¶37

guarantor to pay the outstanding amount within the statutory period. Due to non-compliance, measure under S.13(4) of the

¶38

SA 250/2024

¶39

¶40

SARFAESI Act was initiated for taking symbolic possession of the secured assets.

¶41

3.2. The applicant challenged Annexure-A3 sale notice before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) no. 32438/2025 but due to non-compliance of the direction and failure to remit the 3^rd instalment on 31.12.2023, fresh sale notice was issued on 06.01.2024 by the defendant for e-auction of three items of properties on 24.01.2024. The 2^nd defendant, being the successful bidder in respect of the 2^nd item property, deposited 25% of the bid amount. It is averred in the written statement that all the statutory measures starting from the stage of issuance of demand notice up to issuance of the sale notice are duly followed. After obtaining valuation report from an approved valuer, sale was held in accordance with law which cannot be said as illegal in any manner. As the other sale notices issued by the defendant did not fructify, the claims in respect of the same are rendered infructuous.

¶42

3.3. After amendment of the SA in challenging the measure taken under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act, the defendant did not choose to file any additional written statement. The defendant claims for dismissal of the SA as there is no valid ground to

¶43

SA 250/2024

¶44

¶45

interdict with the sale proceeding in respect of item No.2 property and the proceeding initiated under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶46

The auction purchaser was impleaded as 2^nd defendant in this proceeding. He appeared in this case by engaging advocate but did not file any written statement nor appeared to participate in the hearing.

¶47

During pendency of the SA, the defendant has issued Annexures-A16 and A21 sale notices dated 18.04.2024 and 11.06.2024 in respect of the other two items of properties. Out of which, the sale notice dated 18.04.2024 did not materialize due to non-participation of bidders. In respect of the sale notice dated 11.06.2024, sale was fructified but due to non-deposit of the bid amount by the bidder in time, the sale was cancelled. Hence there is no necessity to adjudicate the claim in respect of sale notices viz., Annexure-A3 dated 05.06.2023, Annexure-A8 dated 05.02.2024, Annexure-A12 dated 12.03.2024, Annexure-A16 dated 18.04.2024 and Annexure-A21 dated 11.06.2024 which did not materialize. Adjudication in this case is confined to determine validity and legality of the sale held on 24.01.2024 in respect of item No.2 property in pursuance to Annexure-A7 sale notice dated 06.01.2024.

¶48

SA 250/2024

¶49

¶50

From the respective case of the applicant and the defendants, the following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶51

(i) Whether the securitization proceedings including S.14 measures suffer from any illegality to interdict with the same?

¶52

(ii) Whether the sale conducted on 24.01.2024 in pursuance to Annexure-A7 sale notice dated 06.01.2024 suffers from any illegality to set aside the same?

¶53

(iii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this proceeding?

¶54

FINDINGS:

¶55

Point No.(ii):

¶56

In this SA the main question arises for adjudication is whether the sale held in respect of item No.2 property on 24.01.2024 in pursuance of Annexure-A7 sale notice dated 06.01.2024 is valid or not?

¶57

The sale of item No.2 property is challenged by the applicant mainly on the following grounds:-

¶58

SA 250/2024

¶59

¶60

(i) All the statutory measures for e-auction of the secured asset are not duly followed. There was no affixture of the sale notice and the sale notice was not published in two leading newspapers.

¶61

(ii) When the judgement of the Hon’ble High Hon'ble High Court of Kerala was in force, selling the property in a hurried manner without looking the interest of the applicant vitiates the sale.

¶62

(iii) Fixation of reserve price was erroneous which has no connection with the market value of the property. The valuation report obtained by the defendant bank is not proper which contradicts the valuation reports obtained by the bank at the time of sanction of loan and selling the property at unreasonable price having no nexus with the market value is against the interest and right of the applicant.

¶63

(iv) No clear 30 days’ notice as mandated in R.8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules is issued which vitiates the entire sale proceeding.

¶64

The defendant in the written statement denied the claim

¶65

and contended that all the statutory measures are duly followed in

¶66

SA 250/2024

¶67

¶68

this case. After obtaining proper valuation as required under R.8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, the sale notice was issued on the basis of the reserve price determined by the secured creditor. Previously, valuation report dated 06.07.2022 marked Annexure-B4 was obtained in respect of item No.2 property but the sale notice did not fructify. Due to non-compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court passed in W.P.(C) no. 32438/2025, Annexure A7 fresh sale notice in respect of item No.2 property was issued on 06.01.2024.

¶69

The 2^nd defendant, being the highest bidder, deposited 25% of the bid amount and the sale was confirmed in his favour. All the statutory measures are duly followed. Paper publications in respect of the sale notice are produced in this case and marked as Annexures-B7 and B8. Since the applicant did not dispute the sale proceeding as illegal in the writ application filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, he cannot now turn around and say that the statutory requirements are not duly followed. It is also not necessary to issue 30 days’ notice in the case of second sale notice. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant have no legal force. Hence the SA may be dismissed.

¶70

SA 250/2024

¶71

¶72

Admittedly, before issuance of Annexure-A7 sale notice, the defendant bank issued sale notice marked Annexure-A3 scheduling the sale on 06.07.2023 which did not materialize. The learned counsel for the applicant contended during argument stage that in case of second sale notice, there is necessity to issue again 30 days’ notice under R.8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules which having not complied, the sale is vitiated

¶73

R.9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,

¶74

2002 reads as follows:-

¶75

(1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower:

¶76

Provided further that if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub rule (5) of Rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale.

¶77

R.9(1) prescribes that in case of subsequent sale, the Authorised

¶78

Officer shall serve, affix and publish the notice of sale of not less than 15 days to the borrower, which is to be read along with R.8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. R.8(6) prescribes that notice of 30 days shall be served to the borrower for the first sale notice for sale of immovable secured assets under sub-rule (5). After amendment of the statute, it does not prescribe that in the

¶79

SA 250/2024

¶80

¶81

subsequent sale, sale notice is to be served on the borrower giving a notice of 30 days. R.8(6) and R.9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules are required to be read conjointly for understanding the intention of the statute.

¶82

A similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Telangana in W.P.No.2109/2020 in the case of Indian Overseas Bank vs. M/s.RA Pure Life Science Limited which was decided by the Division Bench on 10.02.2023 wherein at paragraph 16 it is held as follows:-

¶83

“16. It is thus beyond pale of doubt that it is sufficient that 30 days notice is issued before sale of secured asset is conducted and notices under Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) can be issued simultaneously. In other words, it is not necessary that there must be a 30 days gap after notice under Rule 8(6) is issued and before notice under Rule 9(1) is issued……”

¶84

In view of this ratio, there is absolutely no necessity to issue 30 days’ notice to the borrower under R.8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules for the subsequent sale which is not the intention of the statute. No illegality was committed by the defendant in giving the applicants clear 15 days’ notice under R.9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. The contention

¶85

of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in case of subsequent sale, it is required to issue sale notice again as stipulated in R.8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules

¶86

SA 250/2024

¶87

¶88

giving clear 30 days, which is not at all the intention of the statute after the amendment of the statute. Hence the contention of the learned counsel, having no force under the law, is not accepted.

¶89

Impugning Annexure-A3 sale notice, the applicant filed W.P.(C) No.32438/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. A judgment was passed on 06.10.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court directing the applicant to remit the total amount of Rs.85.58 lakhs together with accrued interest and charges in 12 equal monthly instalments. The 1^st instalment shall be paid on or before 31.10.2023 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on the last working day of every succeeding month. Admittedly, the applicant deposited 1^st and 2^nd instalments but did not deposit the 3^rd installment in time. The Hon'ble High Court extended the period for depositing the 3^rd instalment up to 22.01.2024, on which date the applicant deposited the amount.

¶90

Due to non-deposit of 3^rd instalment in time, AnnexureA7 sale notice was issued on 06.01.2024 fixing the date of sale on 24.01.2024. The applicant deposited the 3^rd instalment on 22.01.2024 and the Hon'ble High Court extended the period of deposit up to said date. In such premises, the defendant bank could have deferred the sale instead of proceeding for e-auction in

¶91

SA 250/2024

¶92

¶93

respect of item No.2 property on 24.01.2024 which contradicts the judgment and direction of the Hon'ble High Court and also affected the constitutional right of the applicant over the said property.

¶94

It is also seen from the record that the defendant bank has not produced any report of affixture of the sale notice which is required under R.8(7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. In case of subsequent sale notice, the same is also required to be complied under R.9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. No material is placed on record about compliance of such statutory requirement which also affects the sale proceeding.

¶95

After sale of the said item No.2 property, the defendant issued fresh sale notice in respect of other items of properties which did not materialize. No material is also placed on record that the applicant has deposited the subsequent instalments as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. Even the applicant did not remit the subsequent instalments as directed by the Hon'ble High Court, the sale held on 24.01.2024 in respect of item no.2 property, being in violation of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, cannot be held valid and legal. So also due to non-compliance of statutory mandatory requirement, the impugned sale is liable to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As the

¶96

SA 250/2024

¶97

¶98

impugned sale is held illegal, there is no necessity to consider the issue raised by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding undervaluation of the secured asset and erroneous fixation of the reserve price.

¶99

The 1^st defendant bank shall return the auction money received to the 2^nd defendant/auction purchaser together with interest at the prevailing rate in relation to the fixed deposit for the period the amount was kept, within a period of two months from the date of passing of this judgment. The defendant bank may proceed further for sale of the secured assets after obtaining fresh valuation as mandated in R.8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. At the time of obtaining fresh valuation report from an approved valuer, the valuation reports filed by the applicant marked as Annexures-A13 to A15, which were taken by the defendant at the time of enhancement of the loan, shall be taken into consideration and by giving proper explanation about the same, fresh valuation shall be obtained in respect of the properties. The reserve price shall be determined in accordance with the law keeping all the materials in view particularly the valuation reports of the secured assets procured at the time of enhance of the loan

¶100

SA 250/2024

¶101

¶102

and the subsequent valuation report. Hence point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.

¶103

Point Nos.(i) and (iii):

¶104

The learned counsel has raised various contentions regarding illegality in issuing demand notice. No representation or objection was submitted by the applicant under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. Possession notice was issued under S.13(4) of

¶105

the SARFAESI Act. The same was also not challenged. After issuance of the sale notice, the applicant filed Writ Application bearing W.P.(C) No.32438/2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. In the final Judgment, the applicant was permitted to deposit the amount in installments. In such premises, the claim against the demand notice and possession notice is not legally sustainable and also the same is barred by limitation.

¶106

Regarding the measure under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the statutory requirements in filing the declaration in MC No.544/2023 is not duly complied. It is further contended that the Authorized Officer has no authority to file the application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on behalf of the secured creditor. The learned CJM passed the order without considering the material illegality in the application

¶107

SA 250/2024

¶108

¶109

and the affidavit filed by the defendant. Hence the order passed by the CJM, Kollam in MC No.544/2023 is not sustainable.

¶110

On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant bank submitted that in the application under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act, the scope of adjudication of the dispute is not permitted. The CJM acts in his administrative capacity in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset. Hence the contention of the learned counsel challenging such measure is not sustainable.

¶111

On careful consideration of the submissions of both sides, it is seen that the secured creditor, being unable to take possession of the secured assets, an application under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act with the required affidavit marked Annexure-A19 is filed by the Authorized Officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. R.2(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules defines ’authorised officer’ which says that the Authorised Officer means an officer to exercise the rights of a secured creditor under the Act. Hence the Authorised Officer has competency to file the proceeding under S.14(1) of the SARFAESI Act in the capacity of the secured creditor which cannot be said as illegal. The Authorized officer has sworn an affidavit as per proviso of S.14(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶112

SA 250/2024

¶113

¶114

On perusal of the same, it appears that the same is not at par with the proviso (i) to (ix) prescribed under S.14(1) of the SARFAESI Act. It is true that in some cases, the contents of the affidavit may be varied and additional data may be furnished but total violation of the statutory requirements is not acceptable and the same cannot be encouraged. The learned CJM has not considered this aspect while passing the impugned order. It is true, the learned CJM exercises administrative power in disposing application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and he has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the parties on merit. But it is required on his part to apply mind to the documents and affidavit filed by the Authorized officer to appreciate whether the affidavit filed is in accordance with the statutory requirements or not, which it failed to appreciate while passing the order in MC no 544/2023 and hence the Annexure-A20 order passed by the learned CJM is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶115

In view of the foregoing reasons, the sale in respect of item No.2 property and the proceeding under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act, being not as per the statutory requirements, are liable to be set aside and the applicant is entitled to get relief in this proceeding. The defendant has right to proceed afresh under S.14

¶116

SA 250/2024

¶117

¶118

of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession and for sale of the secured assets in accordance with law keeping in view the findings in this SA. In the event of any challenge to the securitization proceeding by the applicant in future on accrual of fresh cause of action, the points already adjudicated in this case shall not be reagitated and the applicant shall be prevented in raising the same. Point No.(i) and (iii) are answered accordingly.

¶119

Hence it is ordered:-

¶120

ORDER

¶121

In view of the foregoing reasons and with the above

¶122

observations, this SA is allowed on contest and the sale proceeding in respect of item No.2 property as well as the proceeding initiated under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act are hereby set aside but in the circumstances without cost.

¶123

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 19^th day of June, 2025)

¶124

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶125

SA 250/2024

¶126

¶127

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶128

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	26.07.2022	Copy of demand notice defendant.	issued	by	the
Annexure-A2	07.10.2022	Copy of possession notic applicant.	e issue	d to	the
Annexure-A3	05.06.2023	Copy of sale notice defendant.	issued	by	the
Annexure-A4	06.10.2023	Copy of judgment No.32438/2023 of the Court of Kerala.	in Hon'b	W.P le H	.(C) igh
Annexure-A5	18.12.2023	Copy of order in IA W.P.(C) No.32438/2023 High Court of Kerala.	No.1/2 of the	023 Hon	in 'ble
Annexure-A6	23.01.2024	Copy of order in IA W.P.(C) No.32438/2023 High Court of Kerala.	No.1/2 of the	024 Hon	in 'ble
Annexure-A7	06.01.2024	Copy of sale notice defendant.	issued	by	the
Annexure-A8	05.02.2024	Copy of sale notice defendant.	issued	by	the
Annexure-A9	22.02.2024	Copy of order in IA W.P.(C) No.32438/2023 High Court of Kerala.	No.1/2 of the	024 Hon	in 'ble
Annexure-A10	27.02.2024	Copy of counter affidav defendant in IA No.3/2 No.32438/2023.	it filed 024 in	by W.P	the .(C)
Annexure-A11	22.03.2024	Copy of order in IA W.P.(C) No.32438/2023 High Court of Kerala.	No.4/2 of the	024 Hon	in 'ble
Annexure-A12	12.03.2024	Copy of sale notice defendant.	issued	by	the
Annexure-A13	10.03.2017	Copy of valuation repor 1.21 Ares of land.	t in re	spec	t of

¶129

SA 250/2024

¶130

¶131

Annexure-A14 10.03.2017 Copy of valuation report in respect of 2.25 Ares of land.

¶132

Annexure-A15 12.09.2017 Copy of valuation report in respect of 11.34 Ares of land.

¶133

Annexure-A16 18.04.2024 Copy of sale notice issued by the defendant.

¶134

Annexure-A17 20.04.2024 Copy of publication of sale notice in The New Indian Express daily.

¶135

Annexure-A18 22.04.2024 Copy of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in MC No.544/2023.

¶136

Annexure-A19 ... Copy of affidavit and petition filed by the defendant before the CJM, Kollam.

¶137

Annexure-A20 07.09.2023 Copy of order of the CJM, Kollam.

¶138

Documents on the part of the defendant bank

¶139

Annexure-B1 06.06.2023 Copy of publication of sale notice in Kerala Kaumudi daily.

¶140

Annexure-B2 06.06.2023 Copy of publication of sale notice in The New Indian Express daily.

¶141

Annexure-B3 06.07.2022 Copy of valuation report in respect of item No.1 property.

¶142

Annexure-B4 06.07.2022 Copy of valuation report in respect of item No.2 property.

¶143

Annexure-B5 06.07.2022 Copy of valuation report in respect of item No.3 property.

¶144

Annexure-B6 ... Copy of relevant pages of circular No.42/2023.

¶145

Annexure-B7 07.01.2024 Copy of publication of sale notice in Kerala Kaumudi daily.

¶146

Annexure-B8 07.01.2024 Copy of publication of sale notice in The New Indian Express daily.

¶147

Annexure-B9 05.08.2023 Copy of valuation report in respect of item No.1 property.

¶148

SA 250/2024

¶149

¶150

Annexure-B10 17.07.2023 Copy of valuation report in respect of item No.2 property.

¶151

Annexure-B11 05.08.2023 Copy of valuation report in respect of item No.2 property.

¶152

Annexure-B12 13.03.2024 Copy of publication of sale notice in Kerala Kaumudi daily.

¶153

Annexure-B13 13.03.2024 Copy of publication of sale notice in The New Indian Express daily.

¶154

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶155

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶156

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶157

Dated the 19^th June, 2025

¶158

SA No.250/2024

¶159

Between

¶160

Maheswari A., W/o.late Sajulal, R/o.Sreenilayam, Meenathucheri, Kavanad P.O., Kollam.

¶161

…Applicant

¶162

And

¶163

Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra Centre, Vaishnavi Towers, Bye Pass Road, Kumarichantha, Ambalathara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 026, Represented by the Authorised Officer & another. …Defendants

¶164

F I N A L O R D E R

Maheswari a v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheswari a v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Formost Center versus Hdfc Ltd.

M/s Md Kaif Poultry Feed versus Indian Bank

Smt Yasmeen versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Goudappa Hanumanthappa Huchareddy

Canara Bank versus Smt. Laxmibai

State Bank of India versus Sri. Prabhakar Ranga