Dismissed

Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank

DRT13 Jun 2025SA/294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi dismissed the applicant's appeal seeking to quash SARFAESI actions and auction sale of mortgaged property. The court held the bank followed mandatory procedures, noting the borrower failed to honor One-Time Settlement terms despite multiple opportunities and extensions granted.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed with recovery of dues.

Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DRT-I, DELHI SA No.294 of 2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4thFloor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi PRESIDING OFFICER: GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA SA No.294 of 2024
1.M/s Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. M-116, 2ndFloor, Connaught Place New Delhi-110001
2. Sh.Ram Niwas Bansal s/o Shree Kishan Bansal R/o Flat No.27802, Tower-27, Commonwealth Games Village Delhi-110092
3. Sh.Rajesh Bansal s/o Shree Kishan Bansal R/o E-320, Second Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065
4. Supreme Structure Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: Supreme Cinema, Plot No.13-29, Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar Shandara, Delhi-110032 Applicants
Versus
1.Punjab National Bank (e-Oriental Bank of Commerce) Large Corporate Branch 1st Floor, Harsha Bhawan E Block, Connaught Place New Delhi-110001
Corporate Office: Plot No.4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
2. M/s Aravali Global Metals Plot No.354, Phase I, HSIID Industrial Estate Barhi Ganaur, Sonipat, Haryana-131101 -- Respondents

¶3

DRT-I, DELHI	2 SA No.294 of 2024
Present:
For the Applicant� For the Respondent Bank For Auction Purchaser	�: Sh.Pallav Saxena, Advocate : Sh.Vipin Jai, Advocate : Sh.Ravi Data, Advocate
	Dated: 13.06.2025.
FI	NAL ORDER

¶4

The present appeal has been filed by the S. Applicants on 06.07.2024 under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act 2002 to quash and set aside the SARFAESI measures taken by respondent
bank and set aside impugned demand notice dated 08.06.2016,
Possession Notices, Sale Notice dated 29.04.2024 and
impugned Sale dated 23.05.2024, Sale Certificate and all
actions against secured asset being Supreme Cinema (earlier
known as Swarn Cinema) Plot No.13-29, comprised in Khasra
No.2233/1045/822, Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shandara,
Delhi-32 admeasuring 3441 sq.yds. (hereinafter be called as
property in question) as null and void as null. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that the
present securitization application is preferred by applicants
no.2 and 3 being the directors of applicant no.1 and applicant
no.4 alleged Corporate Guarantor against illegal sale of
property in question owned by applicant no.4 on 23.05.2024 in pursuance of impugned illegal impugned Sale notice dated
29.04.2024 issued under Rule 8 (6) of Security Interest

¶5

¶6

SA No.294 of 2024

¶7

DRT-I, DELHI

¶8

applicants presuming addresses were wrongly mentioned in OA No.506/2017 allowed exparte vide final order dated 06.07.2020. It has further been submitted that the Recovery Certificate would have been issued and pending disposal through applicants never served in recovery proceedings. It has further been submitted that respondent always corresponding at their email ID but impugned sale notice not attempted to be served by email and on 30.06.2024, the applicants know about its when one of their acquaintances informed about subject property handover over to some third party, whose identity is not known. It has further been submitted that this application emanates from alleged claim of erstwhile Oriental bank of Commerce purportedly sanctioned credit facility of BG of Rs.42.00 crores dated 18.03.2009 were renewed from time to time and applicants induced into appending signatures on plethora of printed and unfilled formats without being explained about the contents and on perusal would show addition of handwritings of filling in dates and words, are devoid of consensus ad idem hence unenforceable and void. It has further been submitted that the officials compelled applicant no.4 to sign documents certain documents used to alleged purported creation of security over subject property thus illegal, invalid and void. It has further been submitted that there were certain irregularities in the account but applicants not received

¶9

¶10

SA No.294 of 2024

¶11

DRT-I, DELHI

¶12

any notice from respondent bank and maintained financial discipline adhering terms and conditions, but shocked to received notice u/s 13 (2) dated 08.06.2016 classifying account as NPA on 30.04.2016. It has further been submitted that no opportunity was given to borrower on proposed action of respondent to classify credit facility as NPA, no notice was issued and declared in total violation of RBI guidelines. It has further been submitted that applicants replied u/s 13 (3A) raised pertinent some legal points and demonstrated how irregularities were beyond the control of applicants and not in contemplation of the parties but not considered the objections which is mandatory and secured creditor cannot proceed under provisions of Section 13 (4). It has further been submitted that respondent bank rejected the objection vide letter dated 26.08.2016 without giving proper reasons/explanation. It has further been submitted that Respondent bank issued symbolic possession notice and obtained order u/s 14 by patent misrepresentation, suppression and concealing the material facts and applicants were unlawfully dispossessed from subject property. It has further been submitted that applicants submitted OTS proposal for Rs.25.00 crore on 30.11.2019 along with 2 cheques of Rs.1.00 crore each and after discussions; submitted revised proposal for Rs.27.50 crore which was approved vide letter dated 20.12.2019 advising to

¶13

¶14

SA No.294 of 2024

¶15

DRT-I, DELHI

¶16

pay Rs.2 crore upfront and balance in one instalment by 31.08.2020 towards full and final settlement. It has further been submitted that as per OTS sanction, interest @ 1 year MCRL+2% simple on the due amount will be levied after 3 months from date of approval. It has further been submitted that Respondent bank filed OA no.506/2017 before Ld. DRT-II which was disposed of vide ex-parte final order dated 06.07.2020. It has further been submitted that the applicants vide letter dated 10.07.2020 requested for extension of OTS till 28.02.2021 due to Corona virus pandemic and reconsider interest from March 2020 to February 2021 which was granted but without waiver of interest. It has further been submitted that applicants issued further cheque of Rs.1.00 core dated 25.08.2020 & Rs.50.00 Lakhs dated 24.02.2021 and requested vide letter dated 29.09.2020 to waiver interest but declined vide letter dated 05.10.2020. It has further been submitted that by virtue of OTS, parties entered into fresh contract under Section 62 of Contract Act 1872, therefore, rendered financial documents redundant and no alleged cause of action articulated by impugned notices and no measure taken under SARFAESI could have been permitted. It has further been submitted that Respondent bank vide letter dated 28.05.2021 extended payment of balance OTS amount of Rs.24.00 crore plus interest Rs.4,39,21,740/- plus interest @10.30% on

¶17

¶18

SA No.294 of 2024

¶19

DRT-I, DELHI

¶20

reducing balance from date of approval till 31.08.2021. It has further been submitted that due to Covid-19 and slump in economic activities, applicants could not sell the properties to honor OTS and these circumstances were beyond contemplation of applicants and constituted Force Majeure developments and law does not contemplate performance of impossible tasks and obligations flowing therefrom. It has further been submitted that applicant no.1 & 2 offered fresh OTS for Rs.25.00 crore vide letter dated 16.02.2024 along with cheque for Rs.0.50 crore to be paid by 31.3.2024 arranged from Asteroid Shelters Homes P.Ltd., a third party investor but not responded by Respondent but issued sale notice dated 29.04.2024 and put up the property for auction for Rs.2219.40 lacs on 23.05.2024 by violating rules 8 (6) and 9 (1) which was valued for Rs.55.00 crores in 2015-2016 against Circle Rate of Rs.58.46 crore. It has further been submitted that the impugned sale notice stipulated that auction is being conducted on "as is where is" and "whatever there is" basis are violative of Rule 9 (7) to 9 (10) and is null and void as per judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of J.Rajiv Subramaniyan & Anr.Vs Pandiyas & Ors.-(2014) 5 SCC 651. It has further been submitted that in Mathew Varghese Vs M Amritha Kumar (2014) 5 SCC 610 stipulates that property cannot be sold without serving upon the borrower the notice contemplated by

¶21

¶22

SA No.294 of 2024

¶23

DRT-I, DELHI

¶24

Rule 8 (6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) 2002. It has further been submitted that impugned notice dated 29.04.2024 issued in violation of Rules 8 (2A), Rule 8(6) and Rule 9 (1) which mandates notice issued be served through personal service, affixation at conspicuous part on mortgage property, electronic mode and publication in two leading newspapers. It has further been submitted that reserve price fixed by authorized officer without obtaining fresh valuation report from empanelled valuer under Section 34AB of Wealth Tax Act 1957 and without consulting secured creditor fixed the price fraudulently way lesser than market value of property in question in violation of Rule 8 (5) of Rule, 2002. It has further been submitted that sale notice was not published in daily newspapers having wide and comprehensive circulation in the area of property. It has further been submitted that respondent did not give due credit & adjustment of Rs.3.50 crore deposited by applicants while issuing impugned sale notice dated 29.04.2024 not drawn in the manner contained in Appendix IVA, in violation of Rule 8 (7) (b) and without giving 30 days purported notice. It has further been submitted that applicants reserve their right to implead auction purchaser and prayer is being made in present application and have reason to believe that the officials of respondent colluded, connived and conspired with alleged auction purchaser and sell the property

¶25

¶26

SA No.294 of 2024

¶27

DRT-I, DELHI

¶28

at a throw away price which require investigation. It has further been submitted that Rule 8 (6) is sacrosanct and give opportunity to borrower to redeem the mortgage, further in instant matter, applicant not been served under Rule 9 (1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 also stands infracted. It has further been submitted that the property could not have been sold under SARFAESI Act because OA 506/2017 has already been culminated and RC issued and recovery proceedings are pending, proceedings under SARFAESI Act become expressly barred as per Section 5A (4). It has further been submitted that property sold in excess of portion that was referred to in demand notice dated 08.06.2016 and sale notice dated 29.04.2024. It has further been submitted that only such property referred in demand notice u/s 13 (2) issued by a creditor can be proceeded further u/s 13 (4) and no further and since demand notice only refer to a portion of subject property comprised in Plot No.13-19, the respondent bank could not have proceeded to either take physical possession of the entire subject property or sell/auction the same and when the foundation itself is incurably defective, the superstructure constructed thereon would fall. It has further been submitted that the respondent bank overcharged interest, penal interest, illegal debits and failed to give calculation and bifurcation resulting financial hardship to repay alleged loan ordered to be

¶29

¶30

SA No.294 of 2024

¶31

DRT-I, DELHI

¶32

expunged. It has further been submitted that impugned demand notice claiming huge amount is fictitious, misconceived, illegal as no mention of rate of interest on loan facility, failed to fulfil inviolable obligation. Accordingly, it is requested to quash and set aside entire action and measures initiated against the property in question including demand notice, possession notices, order passed under Section 14, Sale notice, impugned auction sale and Sale certificate issued to Auction purchaser as void ab initio and nullis juris and restore actual and physical possession of property in question along with compensation of Rs.75 crores under Section 19 of SARFAESI Act 2002.

¶33

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has vehemently opposed the submission of the applicants and submitted that applicant no.1 through applicants no.2 and 3 as directors /guarantors availed credit facilities from respondent bank against corporate guarantee of applicant no.4 by mortgaging their properties to secure the credit facilities. It has further been submitted that applicant no.1 was sanctioned Bank Guarantee of Rs.42.00 crore duly availed for its requirements over the years on 18.03.2009 secured collaterally by hypothecation of stock and book debts/exclusive charge on movable assets (on pari-passu basis with Union Bank of India)

¶34

¶35

SA No.294 of 2024

¶36

DRT-I, DELHI

¶37

of defendant no.1 and equitable mortgage of properties with Respondent Bank for securing due payment of BG facility (i) Commercial property Swarn Cinema at Plot No.13-29 (out of Khasra No.2233/1045/822), Pandav Nagar, Vishwas Nagar, Shandara, Delhi owned by defendant no.5. The resolution to mortgage the property was duly approved by Board of Directors of Applicant no.4 on 18.03.2009 and further extended from time to time, executed Letters of Confirmation for extension of mortgage; (ii) Commercial property at Plot No.3, Patparganj Industrial Complex, Delhi-92 and (iii) Commercial property at Plot No.4, Patparganj Industrial Complex, Delhi-92 and out of above, properties No. (ii) and (iii) were not taken as mortgage. It has further been submitted that as per sanction, the third party guarantees of Supreme Structure Pvt. Ltd., Kumar Ice Factory, Mahabir Ice Mills Pvt.Ltd. as Corporate Guarantor, Personal Guarantee of Sh.Ram Niwas Bansal having FNW of Rs.92.93 crore, Sh.Rajesh Bansal having FNW of Rs.38.26 crore, Ms.Neha Bansal d/o Ram Niwas Bansal in line with UBIlead Bank through Sh.Ram Niwas Bansal - PA holder Out of above, Kumar Ice Factory and Mahabir Ice Mills Pvt. Ltd. not taken in the account. It has further been submitted that the Applicant no.1 agreed to pay interest @ 11.40% (floating) subject to change plus penal interest @2% per annum over and above the agreed rate of interest and amount due is not

¶38

¶39

SA No.294 of 2024

¶40

DRT-I, DELHI

¶41

paid in its entirety, same will form part of principal and carry interest agreed and interest tax. It has further been submitted that as per sanction terms and conditions, applicant no.1 was required to maintain financial discipline but defaulted in maintaining the account in addition to various other breaches and violations despite repeated requests and reminders from Respondent Bank to make good the default and breaches of sanction terms. It has further been submitted that due to consequence of defaults and breaches, the account of applicant no.1 became NPA on 30.04.2016. It has further been submitted that Respondent Bank issued notice u/s 13 (2) on 08.06.2016 for Rs.55,42,30,123.70 and certain objections dated NIL raised by applicants duly responded on 26.08.2016. It has further been submitted that Respondent Bank took symbolic possession of property being Commercial Property "Swarn Cinema" Plot Nos.13-29 (out of Khasra No.2233/1045/822), Pandav Nagar, Vishwas Nagar Road, Shandara, Delhi vide notice dated 02.09.2016 duly published in two newspapers Business Standard in Hindi & English on 06.09.2016. It has further been submitted that Respondent bank moved application under Section 14 before Ld.CMM Delhi and taken the possession on 22.04.2017 through Court Receiver. It has further been submitted that Applicants submitted OTS for Rs.25.00 crore on 30.11.2019 which was revised to Rs.27.50 Sel

¶42

¶43

SA No.294 of 2024

¶44

DRT-I, DELHI

¶45

crore on 11.12.2019 which was approved by Respondent Bank on 20.12.2019 but Applicants failed to fulfil the terms of sanction and sought extension of time which was granted vide letter dated 25.09.2020. It has further been submitted that Applicants failed to take advantage of extension which shows they are not at all incline to settle the matter but just buying time to delay the recovery process of Respondent Bank. It has further been submitted that fresh proposal for Rs.25.00 crore was declined on 16.02.2024 by Respondent Bank and published Sale Notice on 01.05.2024 in Business Standard and served upon Applicants by Speed Post on 06.05.2024. It has further been submitted that Respondent Bank obtained two valuation reports from bank's approved valuers on 15.01.2024 and 01.01.2024, fixed reserve price at Rs.22.19 crores and sold to the highest bidder for Rs.22.19 crores on 23.05.2024 and already issued Sale Certificate to the Auction Purchaser. It has further been submitted that Respondent Bank put up the mortgaged property on 12 occasions between 28.12.2017 to 20.03.2024 by fixing the reserve prince of Rs.37.00 crores - Failed Twice, reducing it to Rs.33.30 crores - Failed Twice, Rs.29.87 crores - Failed Thrice, Rs.27.40 crore — failed, Rs.24.66 crore — Failed Thrice and finally sold for Rs.22.19 crores on 20.03.2024, thus observing due process of law under provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002. It has further been submitted

¶46

¶47

SA No.294 of 2024

¶48

DRT-I, DELHI

¶49

that Applicants never approached during auction failed since 2017 and now approached when the auction was successful to frustrate the recovery of Respondent Bank. It has further been submitted that applicants have not come with clean hand and trying to mislead this Tribunal and relief claimed by the Applicants are false, frivolous, vexatious and untenable in law and may be rejected summarily with exemplary costs.

¶50

The Respondent no.2 filed their reply and submitted that present SA is not maintainable either in law or in fact as applicants have concealed various important facts on affidavit from this Tribunal. It has further been submitted that they purchased the property being "The commercial property of Cinema Complex (earlier known as Swarn Cinema) built on Plot no.13-29 of land measuring 3034 sq.yds out of total land measuring 4166 sq.yards bearing Khasra No.2233/1045/822Min situated at Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shandara East, Delhi-110032 and built up property bearing Plot No.13 to 29 measuring 407 sq.yards with its whole super structure thereon out of Khasra No.2233/1045/822, Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shandara, Delhi i.e. total area 3441 sq.yds. through public auction on 23.05.2024 for total consideration of Rs.2229.40 lacs after following due procedure of law. It has further been submitted that entire sale consideration has been

¶51

¶52

SA No.294 of 2024

¶53

DRT-I, DELHI

¶54

deposited within stipulated time as per terms of auction notice. It has further been submitted that authorized officer of respondent bank issued sale certificate on 05.06.2024 under Rule 9(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and delivered actual physical possession of property to Respondent no.2. It has further been submitted that respondent no.1 declared the applicants as NPA with effect from 30.04.2016 and issued notice u/s 13(2) on 08.06.2016, possession notice dated 02.09.2016 and took actual physical possession on 22.04.2017 and made 12 attempts to auction the property in question but applicants did not bother to assail even when were in constant touch for OTS with respondent bank and now came out of their shell after eight years of date of NPA to challenge by filing SA on false, frivolous and untenable grounds. It has further been submitted that property in question was left abandoned by applicants even before 22.04.2017 when respondent bank took the physical possession. It has further been submitted that applicants admitted final order dated 06.07.2020 in OA no.506/2017 and not bothered to appear in OA despite service of summons. It has further been submitted that a litigant is not vigilant about their rights are not entitled in law for any protection and are liable to be thrown out at the first instance as per principal of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements. It has further been submitted that SA

¶55

¶56

SA No.294 of 2024

¶57

DRT-I, DELHI

¶58

filed a highly belated stage is liable to dismissed with heavy and punitive costs as no substantial injury has been cause and neither interest of applicants is effected by auction sale which was committed without any irregularity. It has further been submitted that applicants implead the respondent no.2 with intention of getting illegal gratification by twisting the arms knowing fully well about lawfully and legally purchased the property in question in accordance with law and plot to harass and pressurize the genuine auction purchaser. It has further been submitted that as per valuation reports of valuers dated 16.01.02024 & 19.01.2024, mentioning the building structure demolished and property is locked without any activity and is in dilapidated condition not fit for human occupancy and there is no averment of any irregularity or fraud. It has further been submitted that there is no violation of rules as alleged or otherwise and applicants filed this application to harass and arm twist the respondent who has invested its huge hard earned money. Therefore, respondent no.2 prayed for dismissal of securitization application with heavy costs and thus no material fact concealed and present application is being used to deprive the Respondent Bank from recovering its dues and in view of the aforesaid, this securitization application is liable to be dismissed.

¶59

¶60

SA No.294 of 2024

¶61

DRT-I, DELHI

¶62

Heard the rival contentions of Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the records thoroughly.

¶63

In the present matter, admittedly the borrower has availed the loan facilities from respondent bank (earlier Oriental Bank of Commerce, which has now been merged with Punjab National Bank) in the year 2009 against the hypothecation of stocks and mortgage of the immovable properties including the property in question. Apparently, there is default on the part of the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor in paying the dues of the respondent bank and till date the borrower/mortgagor/ guarantor have not paid the dues of the respondent bank. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the respondent bank has not followed the mandatory provisions while initiating the measures/actions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the entire actions of the respondent bank qua the property in question are bad in law. However, on behalf of the respondent bank, it has been argued that the respondent bank has initiated the measures/actions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as per law and the respondent bank issued the demand notice dated 08.06.2016 under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and thereafter, the symbolic possession notice dated 02.09.2016 under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was also served upon all the borrower/guarantor/mortgagor, even, though

¶64

¶65

SA No.294 of 2024

¶66

DRT-I, DELHI

¶67

publication in two newspapers on 06.09.2016. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondent bank that the sale notice dated 29.04.2024 was also served upon all the borrowers/guarantors/mortgagors. On perusal of the records, it appears that after availing the loan facilities from the respondent bank, the borrower had failed to maintain the financial discipline and accordingly the account was declared as NPA on 30.04.2016 and thereafter the respondent bank has issued the demand notice dated 08.06.2016 under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for an amount of Rs.55,42,30,123.70 to which an objection dated NIL was given by the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor and the respondent bank had disposed of the said objection under section 13 (3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 26.08.2016 and thereafter, the symbolic possession notice dated 02.09.2016 under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was also served upon all the borrower/guarantor/mortgagor, even, through publication in two newspapers 06.09.2016. Thereafter, the respondent bank has issued the sale notice dated 29.04.2024, which was also served upon all the borrowers/guarantors/ mortgagors through speed on 06.05.2024 and even through publication in two newspapers.

¶68

¶69

SA No.294 of 2024

¶70

DRT-I, DELHI

¶71

Apparently, the aforesaid demand notice dated

¶72

08.06.2016 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, symbolic possession notice dated 02.09.2016 under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act and sale notice dated 29.04.2024 have been served upon all the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor as per Security Interest (Enforcement), Rules, 2002 were duly served upon the borrower/guarantor/mortgagor and thus, this Tribunal is of the view that there was no illegality or irregularity on the

¶73

part of the respondent FI in taking measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Though, the securitization applicant has

¶74

raised the objection that applicants induced into appending signatures on plethora of printed and unfilled formats without

¶75

being explained about the contents and on perusal would show

¶76

addition of handwritings of filling in dates and words, are devoid

¶77

of consensus ad idem hence unenforceable and void and even

¶78

the officials of the respondent bank compelled the applicant

¶79

no.4 to sign certain blank documents used to alleged purported

¶80

creation of security over subject property thus illegal, invalid

¶81

and void. However, record reveals that these applicants have never claimed that they are illiterate persons and once the

¶82

signature on a document is admitted, it stands proved. Further,

¶83

these applicants are grownup persons and even the applicant no.4 is a private limited company and are doing business and it

¶84

is highly improbable that they would have signed the blank

¶85

¶86

SA No.294 of 2024

¶87

DRT-I, DELHI

¶88

documents merely on asking of the bank officials without giving an opportunity to understand the clause and contents of the documents. Even otherwise, such plea of blank documents is also a sham plea as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled 'Indian Bank vs M/s Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Reported in 76 (1998) DLT and thus the said objection is not sustainable. Further, the applicants have raised the objections that the officials of respondent bank colluded, connived and conspired with alleged auction purchaser and sell the property at a throw away price and the respondent bank has failed to give opportunity to borrower to redeem the mortgage.

¶89

On perusal of the records it reveals that after availing the loan facilities from the respondent bank the borrower did not maintain financial discipline and accordingly the account was declared as NPA on 30.04.2016 and thereafter the demand notice under section 13 (2) and symbolic possession notice under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was served upon all the borrowers/guarantors/mortgagors as per the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Admittedly, the respondent bank has put the property in question on 12th times and during the auction proceedings, the applicants have given

¶90

the One Time Settlement proposals, which were accepted by

¶91

¶92

SA No.294 of 2024

¶93

DRT-I, DELHI

¶94

the respondent bank, but the applicants have failed to make the payment as per the terms of the settlement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent bank has not given the opportunities to the applicants to redeem the property in question.

¶95

Further, the securitization applicant has also raised the objection that there is mis-description of the property in question mentioned in demand notice dated 08.06.2016 under section 13 (2) and symbolic possession notice dated 02.09.2016 under section 13 (4) because in the said notices the property number has been mentioned as "property/plot no.13-19", whereas the correct number of the property/plot is "13-29" and accordingly, the said demand notice and symbolic possession notice are bad in law. However, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent bank that there is typographical error about the property/plot number mentioned in the aforesaid demand notice and symbolic possession notice and the correct property/plot number is "13-29" and the respondent bank has auctioned the said property/plot number no.13-29 vide sale notice 01.05.2024 and the said property bearing no.13-29 was duly mortgaged with the respondent bank and in this regard they have filed the copy of Equitable Mortgage Register (Annexure-A). On perusal of the records, it appears that there

¶96

¶97

DRT-I, DELHI

¶98

SA No.294 of 2024

¶99

is typographical error in the description of the mortgage property because in the demand notice dated 08.06.2016 under section 13 (2) and symbolic possession notice dated 02.09.2016 under section 13 (4) the property/plot number has wrongly been mentioned as "13-19", whereas the correct number is

¶100

"13-29" and such fact is also corroborated from the copy of Equitable Mortgage Register, which was filed by the respondent bank vide diary no.4823 dated 05.06.2025, and further on perusal of the said documents it also appears that the said document (equitable mortgage register) was duly signed by the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor. Further, on perusal of the copy of title documents, which was filed by the auction purchaser vide diary no.4925 dated 10.06.2025, it appears that the

¶101

property/plot number in the said document is mentioned as

¶102

"13-29". Thus, keeping in view of these facts, this Tribunal is of the affirmed view that in the demand notice dated 08.06.2016

¶103

under section 13 (2) and symbolic possession notice dated 02.09.2016 under section 13 (4) the property/plot number has wrongly been mentioned as "13-19" and the correct number is

¶104

"13-29" and thus it cannot be said that the respondent bank has wrongly auctioned the property bearing no.13-29 and even

¶105

the respondent bank has rightly auctioned the property bearing no.13-29 vide auction sale notice dated 29.04.2024. It has also

¶106

been argued by the Ld. counsels for the respondent bank and

¶107

¶108

DRT-I, DELHI

¶109

SA No.294 of 2024

¶110

the auction purchaser that there is no illegality that go to the root of such an auction and no fraud or collusion appears to be on the face of the record.

¶111

That since the borrower after receiving the aforesaid notices has failed to pay the dues, therefore, the respondent bank has proceeded further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for recovery of its dues. Thereafter, the respondent bank had made various efforts by putting up the mortgaged property on auction on twelve occasions from 28.12.2017 till 20.03.2024 by fixing the reserve prince of Rs.37.00 crores-failed twice, reducing it to Rs.33.30 crores-failed twice, Rs.29.87 croresfailed thrice, Rs.27.40 crore— failed, Rs.24.66 crore—failed Thrice and finally the respondent bank succeeded to auction the mortgage property in question for Rs.22.19 crores on 20.03.2024 after obtaining two valuation reports from bank's approved valuers on 15.01.2024 and 01.01.2024. Record further reveals that after declaring the account as NPA and issuance of the aforesaid demand notice and symbolic possession notice the borrower/ mortgagor/guarantor has submitted the OTS for Rs.25.00 crore on 30.11.2019, which was revised to Rs.27.50 crore on 11.12.2019, and the same was approved by respondent bank on 20.12.2019, but Applicants

¶112

failed to fulfil the terms of OTS and accordingly, they sought

¶113

¶114

DRT-I, DELHI

¶115

SA No.294 of 2024

¶116

extension of time which was also granted vide letter dated 25.09.2020, but again the Applicants failed to take advantage of extension. Keeping in view of the such conduct of the applicants, this Tribunal is of the view that despite the various opportunities granted by the respondent bank the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor has failed to comply with the terms of settlements arrived with the respondent bank and even they have also failed to bring any better buyer before the date of auction and thus it cannot be said that the respondent bank has auctioned the property in question at throw away price without following the due process of law.

¶117

Ld. counsel for the securitization applicants has relied upon the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble DRATs i.e. "Ram Kishun and

¶118

Ors. Vs State of U.P & Ors" MANU/SC/0494/2012 [para nos. 8,9,11,12,16 and 17], " Rajesh Gems and Jewels Vs Indian Overseas Bank" 2017 SCC online 10679 [para no.4], "Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax Nodal-9, Mumbai and Ors." MANU/MH/3011/2022 [para 129], "Ronak Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner Centeral Excise & Custom" decided on 28.06.2023 passed by Apex Court [para 11 @ page no.7 and 17], "Mathew Varghese

¶119

Vs M. Amritha Kumar" (2014) 5 SCC 610 [paras 29.4, 30 and

¶120

¶121

SA No.294 of 2024

¶122

DRT-I, DELHI

¶123

31], "Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs N.L. Anand Vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma"-(1994) 1 SCC 131 [para 9,10 and 12], "J. Rajiv Subramaniyam and Anr. Vs. Pandiyas and Ors." (2014) 5 SCC 651 [para nos. 11,13,15 and 18], "Mahakal Automobiles & Anr. Vs Kishan Swaroop Shama"(2008) 13 SCC 113 [para nos. 11,13 and 15], "Shri Sai Annadhatha Polymers and Another Vs The Canara Bank Rep. by its Branch Manager, Madanapalle" (2018) SCC Online HYD 178 [para 23 and 24], "Celler LLP Vs Bafna Motors Ors.(Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and Others" 2023 SCC Online SC 1209 [para 37 and 105.3], "V. Sambandan Vs The Punjab National Bank & Anr.", "Mohd. Shariq Vs Punjab National Bank"2023 SCC Online SC 392 [para 26], "V. Sambandan Vs. The Punjab National Bank and Another" 2017 SCC Online 4570 [para 59.25 and 61], "A.K. Jain Vs Canara Bank and Ors MANU/DE/8620/2007 [para no.15 and 17].", "Parwati Devi & Ors. Vs State Bank of Patiala & Ors." MANU/HP/1175/2018 [para no.7,9,10,12,16], "Kanika Swami Vs State of U.P. and Ors." MANU/UP/2703/2017, "Bhupinder Singh Vs State Bank of Patiala" 2008 SCC Online PH 473 [para 20], "Swastik Agency and Others Vs State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar & Ors." MANU/OR/0010/2009 [para 11 and 13], "E.K. Rajan Vs. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank" 2022 SCC Online KER 2484 [para 17], "Stan Commodities Vs Punjab & Sind Bank-2008 SCC Online Jhar169 [paras 28 & 30]. "Fullerton India Credit

¶124

¶125

DRT-I, DELHI

¶126

SA No.294 of 2024

¶127

Company Ltd. Vs Advance Surfactants India Ltd. MANU/DD/0011/2021 [para 7]", "Riya Garments Vs. Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils & Laminations Ltd. & Ors." passed in Mis. Appeal no.116/2016, "Union Bank of India and Anr Vs Dilshad Elahi" (2024) IBCLAW.IN 41 DRAT passed by the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata Bench [paras 34,35 and 36], "VST Construction and Anr. Vs Canara Bank and Ors." (2024) IBCLAW IN 141 DRAT passed by the Hon'ble DRAT Kolkata Bench [paras 34,35 and 36], "Chaudhary Venture Pvt. Ltd Vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd- APPEAL NO.387/2023 passed by the Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi on 21.08.2024 [para 85-88]. "T.V. Bahu Vs. The Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank" MANU/KE/3069/2018 [para nos. 10 and 13], "Venshiv Pharma Chem(P) Ltd. and Vs. State Bank of India & Ors." MANU/AP/0138/2018 [paras 54, 55 and 56], "Star Trace Engineering Division and Ors. Vs. The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II and Ors." MANU/TN/6613/2023 [paras 19, 20 and 23], "K.V.V. Prashad Rao Gupta Vs State Bank of India" MANU/TL/0091/2021[para 21], "S. Shanmuganathan Vs. The Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch" MANU/TN/1402/2017 [para 15,16, 17 and 19], "Corporation Bank & Anr. Dr. Jayesh Kumar Jha"-I(2020) BC 14(DB) Cal.(Para 40)", "Rekha Sahu Vs. UCO Bank and Ors. MANU/UP/1191/2013-(para 22)."

¶128

¶129

DRT-I, DELHI

¶130

SA No.294 of 2024

¶131

I have respectfully gone through the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble DRATs and found that the same are not helpful to the present securitization applicants because of the reason that the securitization applicants have admitted their liability willingly and voluntarily by offering the settlement proposals to the respondent bank on different dates and lastly on sanctioning of OTS by the respondent bank, the securitization applicants have intentionally and willfully failed to make the payment of settlement and even after extension of time thereon. Even otherwise, there is no illegality or irregularity on the part of the respondent bank in taking measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the applicants have also not denied about the availment of the loan facilities and creation of mortgage property in question in favor of the respondent bank. 13. That the demand notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act have been duly issued and served upon the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor and the borrower has not cleared the dues of the respondent bank despite the various opportunities granted by the respondent bank. That the respondent bank has issued the demand notice dated

¶132

¶133

SA No.294 of 2024

¶134

DRT-I, DELHI

¶135

08.06.2016 under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 thereby calling upon the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor to pay the dues of Rs.55,42,30,123.70 alongwith future interest within 60 days, but despite receiving the said demand notice the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor has failed to pay the dues of the respondent bank within 60 days therefore, the respondent bank has proceeded further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to recover its dues.

¶136

Admittedly, the borrower/mortgagor/ guarantor has not denied about the availment of the loan facilities from the respondent bank against the mortgage of the property in question. Further, the borrower/guarantor/mortgagor has not come forward to pay the dues of the respondent bank after availing more than

¶137

period of eight years and even they have failed to honor of settlement terms and these borrowers/ mortgagors/guarantors cannot run away by raising such frivolous objections, that when the recovery of public money of more than Rs.55,42,30,123.70 (as on 08.06.2016) plus future interest is involved in the present

¶138

account.

¶139

In view of the above facts and circumstances and

¶140

SARFAESI Act and Rules, this Tribunal is of the affirmed view

¶141

that the respondent bank has followed the mandatory

¶142

procedures as laid down under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and

¶143

¶144

DRT-I, DELHI

¶145

SA No.294 of 2024

¶146

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 while initiating measures for recovery of its dues including auctioning of the property in question, therefore, the present Securitization Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶147

(ORDER)

¶148

The present Securitization Application filed by the applicants stands dismissed along with pending applications, if any, and the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further to recover its dues as per law and interim order, if any, passed during the pendency of this SA, stands vacated. The present final order be uploaded immediately on the website of this Tribunal.

¶149

Final Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 13th June, 2025.

¶150

Dictated & Corrected by me.

¶151

1.0.)-s-(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-I, Delhi

Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. 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

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Apl Metals Limited

Ms Das Stationery Proprietor Mritunjoy Das versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Rejab @ Md Rejab Sekh And Anr.

Mr Mohammed Zeeshan Habibulla versus Canara Bank

Ms Arunachaleswara Translogistics India Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Director versus 69

Sunil H M versus Muthoot Housing Finance Company Limited