Anjali v. Uco Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRT disposed of a sale application regarding an auction notice. The bank admitted the notice lacked 30 days' validity, decided to withdraw it, and issue a fresh notice with proper timelines.
What did the court decide?
Withdrawal of auction notice and refund of money deposited by purchaser within a week.
What the court decided
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/265/2025 ANJALI Vs UCO BANK
27.10.2025 Item No.43
Present: Mr. Shubham Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Munish Mittal, Counsel for respondent bank.
Mr. Mittal, admits that bank had issued the auction notice on 01.09.2025 and the same was dispatched on 03.09.2025 and was served upon the applicant on 09.09.2025. The bank had put up the property for auction on 08.10.2025. It was the first sale. Mr. Mittal, admits that applicant was not given 30 days' auction notice and now the bank has taken a decision to withdraw this auction notice. He states that bank would issue fresh auction notice of 30 days'. In view of this, SA stands disposed of. The bank would refund the money deposited by the auction purchaser within a week from today.
File be consigned to record room after due c
(A Narafig) Presiding ,.. fficer DRT-I, Chandigarh
PANKAJ
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Anjali
- respondent
UCO Bank
Coram
A Narafig
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court