Dismissed

Shradha Saburi Educational Society v. Punjab National Bank

DRT10 Oct 2025SA/269/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Securitization Application under the SARFAESI Act by an educational society against a bank filed after complying with recovery arrangements. The Presiding Officer noted the applicant was debarred from raising repeated grounds and having failed prior voluntary collection efforts, dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act dismissed; all pending interim applications disposed of accordingly.

Shradha Saburi Educational Society versus Punjab… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No.269/2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/269/2025

¶4

SHRADHA SABURI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

¶5

10.10.2025 Item No.219 (S-4)

¶6

Present: Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Counsel for respondent Bank along with Mr. Ashish Adhikari, Chief Manager/PNB.

¶7

Shradha Saburi Educational Society (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against the Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank (Respondent).

¶8

Applicant had raised a Term Loan of Rs.2.50 Crores in the year 2016. To secure the loan, Chaman Lal Kochhar had created security interest in respect of house No.70-71, Durga Colony, Near HMV College, Jalandhar. The account turned NPA on 31.08.2019. Bank had issued the notice under Section 13(2) on 03.09.2019 and the notice under Section 13(4) on 19.11.2019. Applicant had earlier filed SA No.129 of 2022 on 30.06.2022, which he had withdrawn on 29.07.2024 on the ground that he would settle the matter. In between, there was OTS on two occasions on 30.12.2020 and 23.10.2024. However, Applicant did not comply with either of the OTS. Finally, the Bank obtained the DM order and the Tehsildar served the same on the Applicant on 23.09.2025. On 22.09.2025 Applicant filed the present SA.

¶9

Respondent has filed reply to the SA.

¶10

Mr. Vyas, counsel for the Applicant has argued that in the notice under Section 13(2) there is no date of NPA; the possession notice is undated; the wrong possession notice was published in the newspaper, as the possession notice is dated 19.11.2019 and the date in the publication is stated to be 20.11.2019. Further, he argues that there is no CERSAI registration. He further

¶11

¶12

SA No.269/2025

¶13

argues that in the notice of the Tehsildar the date of the order passed by the DM is stated to be wrong as the date is stated to be 07.11.2023 whereas as per the report obtained by him no order was passed on 07.11.2023 in the present case. On these facts he argues that SARFAESI action be set aside.

¶14

Per contra, Mr. Rajotia, counsel for the respondent Bank has placed on the record the CERSAI Registration in respect of Chaman Lal Kochhar. I have perused the CERSAI Registration, which I am of the considered view, is correct. Mr. Rajotia, argues that Bank has complied with all the formalities and there is no defect in the CERSAI registration. He further argues that Applicant had earlier submitted OTS on two occasions on 30.12.2020 and 23.10.2024 and he did not comply with the same. Applicant had earlier filed SA No.129 of 2022 which he had abandoned. Accordingly, he states that SA be dismissed.

¶15

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶16

Earlier Applicant had filed SA No.129 of 2022, which he later on had withdrawn. I am of the considered view, that Applicant is debarred from raising the same grounds in this SA. That apart, Applicant had submitted OTS on two occasions on 30.12.2020 and 23.10.2024, which he did not comply. This also debars him from challenging the SARFAESI action. I am of the considered view, that there is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the Applicant that in the Tehsildar notice the date of the order passed by the DM is wrong. The notice of the Tehsildar is only the intimation that he would take the possession. Accordingly, there is no merit in the SA and the same is hereby dismissed. All the pending IAs, if any are also stand disposed off accordingly.

¶17

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per

¶18

rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶19

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶20

Pronounced in open court Dated: 10.10.2025 PANKAJ

¶21

Shradha Saburi Educational Society v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shradha Saburi Educational Society 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Sushma Singh

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Vijayantjyani

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Baljit Singh

Vk Trading Company versus Punjab National Bank

Rohit Jaswal versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Rinwa Fashion