The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's Sale Proceeding application as premature for two properties where notice under Section 13(4) was not issued after notice under Section 13(2) was served. The remaining six sold properties were not challenged.
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-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/269/2024 GK EXIM Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
19.05.2025 Item No.38
Present: Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Counsel for respondent bank.
Counsel for the applicant states that in this case 9 properties are involved, out of which 6 have been sold. Applicant does not challenge their sale. She further states that in respect of two properties, though the bank had issued the notice under Section 13(2) yet, it has not issued notice under Section 13(4). Accordingly, her SA regarding those properties is premature. In view of this, SA stands disposed of.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
PANKAJ
1 issue framed by the court
WhetherSaleProceedings_SA_are_premature_and_need_to_be_dismissed_due_to_non_issuance_of_necessary_notice_under_Section_13(4).
2 provisions across 1 enactments
GK EXIM
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
A S Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
