Dismissed

Ms Nirbhaya Enterprises v. Canara Bank

DRT20 Dec 2025SA/271/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act filed by mortgagors challenging a property auction. The Presiding Officer held the application time-barred, ruling that limitation commenced upon service of the auction notice. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal clarified that 'publication' under Section 13(8) refers to newspaper publicatio

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application stands disposed of as dismissed due to being time-barred.

Ms Nirbhaya Enterprises versus Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 271/2023

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIMAL GUPTA

¶3

SA No.- 271/2023

¶4

M/S Nirbhaya Enterprises Having Office At Shop No. 223b, New Anaj Mandi, Sri Ganganagar Road, Bikaner, Rajasthan 334001 Through Its Proprietor Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Paras Mal, Resident Of Village And Post - Khichan, Tehsil -Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur -342308.

¶5

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Paras Mal, Resident Of Village And Post - Khichan, Tehsil -Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur -342308. 3. Sri Ram Jat S/O Shri Dana Ram Jat Resident Of Behind Hanuman Temple, Bangla Nagar, Pugal Road, Bikaner - 334001.

¶6

………Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Canara Bank Limited, Having Its Office At Canara Bank Limited, Arm Branch, B-6, Sethi Colony, Jaipur - 302004 Through Its Authorized Officer.

¶9

Mr. Shiv Sagar Bishnoi S/O Mohan Lal Bishnoi, Resident Of Ii No. 10/141, Sector 10, Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan - 334001.

¶10

..….. Defendants

¶11

Present:

¶12

Shri Akarsh Mathur, Counsel for the Applicant Shri Raj Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI Shri Karan Pratap Singh, Counsel for the Auction Purchaser

¶13

signed and uploaded on 23.12.2025 cm

SA No. 271/2023

(Final Order)

(20.12.2025)

This Securitization Application has been pending since April, 2023 filed on the basis of letter written by respondent bank to police commissioner to provide police help.

¶18

The applicant had been in knowledge of the things, since beginning and had not made any efforts to clear the dues of the bank. The applicant is relying upon the suo moto judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed during the COVID period to say the limitation is to be calculated from 01.03.2022 for 90 days.

¶19

This is a misleading averment made in the limitation para as actions taken by the bank for auction of the property are from auction notice dated 17.11.2022, copy of which has been annexed with the petition and submission in Para XVII, 5.17, there is an admission that the said notice has been served.

¶20

The applicants were present before District Magistrate and contested the proceedings under Section 14. They have been carefully watching the proceedings by sitting on the fence.

¶21

Counsel for the bank vehemently argues that letter written by the bank to a third party, i.e. Police does not give them the limitation to file this Securitization Application. He further submits that notice under Section 14 is not to be served but the applicant appeared before the District Magistrate through counsel, thus he had notice but did not challenged.

¶22

Today, he submits that he is only concerned with the auction and challenge is made to the auction. In Para 5.21, it is averred that the bank is trying to take illegal possession vide possession letter dated 21.02.2023. There is clear overwriting, not authenticated by applicant or his counsel making changes in the date. Everywhere said letter is addressed as possession letter and date has been over written

¶23

signed and uploaded on 23.12.2025 cm

¶24

SA No. 271/2023

¶25

and while seeking interim orders, there was a blank which has been filled as 21.02.2023. Even if it is taken on face of it, it also does not give limitation.

¶26

SA has been filed on 11.04.2023. Counsel submits that limitation has to be counted from the date of knowledge, definitely when a letter dated 21.02.2023 is placed from that date, they had the knowledge. Though, the knowledge is inferred from 5.17 that there is an admission about service of auction notice.

¶27

Superior Courts have come to the conclusion that even intimation to take possession is a measure and can be challenged, but the challenge is made to the possession notice dated 04.02.2023 and alleged letter is stated to be possession letter which is not addressed to them. It is a letter seeking police protection, therefore the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is in knowledge of possession notice, being served.

¶28

Ironically, there is no challenge made to the sale notice served upon them rather sale dated 09.10.2022 is requested to be set aside.

¶29

Counsel for the Auction Purchaser submits that this securitization application is highly time barred and do not contest the letter and counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no redemption notice given , but composite notice of Rule 8(6) and 9(1) is given.

¶30

He also argues that the auction was held on 09.12.2022 and the Sale Certificate was issued on 16.01.2023. Auction Purchaser has already got their Sale Certificate registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar-I, Bikaner on 03.08.2023. The physical possession was also handed over to the auction purchaser on 12.04.2023. Thus, no cause of action remains for the Applicants to challenge the same under Section 17 before this Tribunal.

¶31

signed and uploaded on 23.12.2025 cm

¶32

SA No. 271/2023

¶33

Be that it may be, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s has passed a judgment dated 22.09.2025 in the matter of M. Rajendran Vs. M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. and Para No. 116, 117 and 118 are reproduced here as under:-

¶34

116 . Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules provides that before the sale of the immovable secured asset, by way of obtaining quotations, inviting tenders, holding auction or by private treaty, a notice of sale has to be served to the borrower. Proviso to Rule 8(6) provides that where the proposed sale is by way of either public auction or inviting tenders from public, the secured creditor shall cause a public notice in two leading newspapers.

¶35

117. Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Rules appears to hold significance in understanding the word "publication" employed in Section 13(8), and which notice, the said word appears to be referring to. Rule 9(1) inter-alia states that no sale of immovable secured asset 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".

¶36

118. From a conjoint reading of the Proviso to Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Rules, the words "before the date of publication of notice" used in Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, semantically appear to mean the publication of the notice of sale in the newspaper, as specified in Rule 8(6). This is particularly because Rule 9(1) while referring to the notice of sale of public auction / tender under the Proviso to Rule 8(6), specifically uses the word "published", thereby suggesting that term "publication" occurring in Section 13(8) is referring to nothing but the notice envisaged under the Proviso to Rule 8(6) or to put it simply, the notice of sale in the newspaper.

¶37

Since the SA is not within limitation, the Tribunal is inclined to dismiss the same.

¶38

Counsel for the applicant submits that the property details which are mentioned in the publication and the notices are not correct, however, the same challenges made

¶39

signed and uploaded on 23.12.2025 cm

¶40

SA No. 271/2023

¶41

are not within limitation, so these cannot be entertained even otherwise the same property was mortgaged.

¶42

Counsel for the applicant submits that he want to place certain judgment on limitation aspect as Section 17(1) is very clear. Limitation will start running from the date when the measure is taken. He is of the opinion that relying upon the judgment in his knowledge is not before this Tribunal that it should be from the date of knowledge.

¶43

The recent judgment passed by Hon’ble DRAT submits that if notice is not served, then date of knowledge can be taken for limitation. But, here averments and the arguments are contrary. In the averment it is stated that they have been served with the notice, in arguments, they submit that no notice was served, but copy of the notice was given to them by the bank when they visited.

¶44

I have perused the notice not only this, even Section 13(4) Notice is also very clear. If bank officer has given, then at least office copy should have been written on the said notice.

¶45

Counsel for the auction purchaser submits that if time is being given for filing judgment, then stay order should be vacated.

¶46

The Tribunal could have given him time, but even from the date of knowledge, the SA is not within limitation. So the SA deserves to be dismissed, accordingly, SA stands disposed of as dismissed.

¶47

File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶48

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶49

signed and uploaded on 23.12.2025 cm

Ms Nirbhaya Enterprises v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Nirbhaya Enterprises v. Canara 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

Rajasthan Gramin Bank versus Pappu Ram Meghal

Icici Bank Limited versus Padam Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Radhey

Jagdish Prasad versus Sri Ram Housing Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mr Mehendra Singh Rajpurohit

Mr Veeru Aswani versus Yes Bank