The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application to quash SARFAESI action initiated by a bank. The Tribunal found that the bank failed to substantiate the service of the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, citing laboriously unclear proofs of publication and affixation.
The SARFAESI action was quashed.
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.
1
SA314 of lOll [JI
DRT,PATNA
DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNALPATNA
PresidingOfficer:ShriKaushalendraYadav
SA- 314of 2022
.........Applicants
Versus
--respondents
Present:
: Sh.C.S.P.Sinha,Advocate Forthe Applicant
Forthe RespondentBank
: Sh.SachindraKr.Tiwari.Advocate
Dated:0101.2025
JUDGMENT
2
DRT,PATNA
SA 314 of lOll [JJ
SARFAESIaction taken against the properties of applicant alongwith the possession notice.
3
ORT, PATNA
SA 314 of 2022 [J)
8ajaj Allianz GeneraLInsurance Ltd. Further, on advice of respondent bank, the appLicantshave submitted its documents before the officiaL of insurance company at the branch of bank itseLf but tiLLdate no claim has been provided. Instead of assistance towards insurance claim, the bank initiated SARFAESIaction against the appLicantsand served a notice dated 08.02.2021u/s 13(2) of the act. Prior to this notice, no notice was served upon the appLicantregarding decLaration of account as NPA. Further, the respondent bank sent another notice dated 17.08.2021informing the appLicantsthat the bank had decided to take possession of the secured asset and directed the applicant to deLiver the possession of the property on or before 01.09.2021. Neither possession notice was served upon appLicantnor affixed on secured nor pubLished in two Leading newspapers. SuddenLy,the appLicant came to know that a notice dated 26.08.2022 has been affixed on the premises of the factory mentioning that the physicaL possession of the mortgaged property has been taken by the bank with the heLp of District Magistrate on 26.08.2022. The property is aLsonot registered with CERSAI.
4
DRT,PATNA
SA 314 of 2022 [JJ
possession notice was served upon the applicants and it was also published in Hindustan and Prabhat Khabar on 26.10.2021.Further, the respondent bank approached the District Magistrate for physical possession of the property accordingly, physical possession was handed over to the bank on 26.08.2022. The property has been duly registered with CERSAIvide no. 200040371948dated 05.01.2016.
•
5
DRT, PATNA
SA 314 of 2022 IJ)
with the counter affidavit but the same appears in the form of a handbiLLthough it is not LegibLe.The respondent bank stated in its counter affidavit that the possession notice was published in Hindustan and Prabhat Khabar on 26.10.2021but from perusaLof said publication annexed with counter affidavit does not disclose the name of newspapers nor its date of pubLication.
ORDER
The Securitization AppLication NO.314 of 2022, fiLed by Mis Rajnandani NoodLesUdyogand others is hereby aLLowed.The SARFAESI Action in question is quashed. G..;' - •
[KaushaLendraYadav]
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery TribunaL,Patna
Judgment signed, seaLed,dated and pronounced in the open court ~ on this O1ST Day of January, 2025. cp" f
cp" f "
,J / ...;-,
o F'- V .s.D'_,o
-i-:.» L-
[KaushaLendraYadav]
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery TribunaL,Patna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal should quash the SARFAESI action due to non-service of the possession notice under Section 13(4).
Whether the proof of service regarding the possession notice is sufficient.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Mis Rajnandani Noodles Udyog
Madhuri Tiwari
Sri Manoj Kumar
Smt. Champa Devi
Punjab National Bank
Kaushalendra Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
