Allowed

Ms Mamta Associates and others v. Indusind Bank Limited

DRT6 Jan 2025SA/318/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by a borrower to quash SARFAESI action. The court found that the Section 14 possession notice suffered an infirmity as the column for the date of taking possession was left blank.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI action, specifically the possession notice dated 18.09.2023 under Section 14, is quashed.

Ms Mamta Associates and others versus Indusind Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DRT,PATNA

¶2

SA 318 of 2023 [JI

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶4

Presiding Officer: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶5

SA- 318 of 2023

¶6

1. MIS MAMT A ASSOCIATES, Proprietor Mr. Shardendu Kumar Singh,( Borrower And Guarantor)

¶7

MR. SHARDENDU KUMAR SINGH S/O Late Sidhinath Singh(Proprietor And Guarantor)

¶8

MAMTA KUMARI WIO Mr Shardendu Kumar Singh (Guarantor) All The Resident OfM_I,2 nd Floor ,Vijay Aman Complex,Near Tewari Tower Becher Kankarbagh.Main Road, Patna-800020

¶9

......... Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

I. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDUSIND BANK, 3A, Upper Wood Street, Savitri Towers, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700017.

¶12

. Respondent

¶13

Present; For the Applicant : Sh. Satish Narayan Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Sh. Baua jha, Advocate

¶14

Dated: 06.01.2025

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

I. The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire SARF AESI action taken against the applicants' property. including the possession notice dated 07.06.2022 and the notice dated 18.09.2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that MIS Mamta Associates, through its proprietor Mr. Shardendu Kumar Singh, availed a credit facility of ~35,00,000 and an additional ~7,04,000 as a COVID loan, mortgaging property as security. Both Mr. Shardendu Kumar Singh and Mamta Kumari are guarantors. Due to default in repayment, the bank declared the account NPA on 28.09.2021. Subsequently, the bank initiated SARF AESI action by issuing a demand notice under Section 13(2) dated 19.01.2022. After the borrower failed to repay the amount despite the ~~~ \0"

¶18

0'"

¶19

SA 318 of 2023 U)

¶20

DRT,PATNA

¶21

demand notice, the respondent bank issued a possession notice dated 07.06.2022 under Section 13(4) of the Act, followed by a notice dated 18.09.2023 under Section 14 of the Act to take physical possession on 25.09.2023. Aggrieved by the physical possession notice, the present Securitization Application (SA) has been filed.

¶22

The learned counsel of the applicant submits that the respondent bank did not deliver the demand notice dated 19.01.2022under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Regarding the possession notice, the applicant states that they returned to Patna from Bangalore in May 2023 and only then became aware of the possession notice dated 07.06.2022. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the possession notice is defective because the date of taking symbolic possession is left blank. They also contend that the notice was published in newspapers, namely Sunmarg and Morning India, which are not widely circulated. Additionally, the applicant asserts that the notice under Section 14, dated 18.09.2023, was delivered on 19.09.2023, instructing them to take possession on 25.09.2023, thus providing less than the required seven days notice.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that due to non-payment of the loan, the respondent bank declared the account as NPA on 28.09.2021. Subsequently, the bank issued a demand notice dated 19.01.2022 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, which was duly served to the applicant. The respondent bank further submits that, upon the applicant's failure to repay the amount, a possession notice dated 07.06.2022 was issued under Section 13(4) of the said Act, served to the applicant, and affixed at the secured asset. Additionally, the applicant was served through publication in two newspapers. It is further submitted that an application was filed under Section 14 to the District Magistrate, and, as per the Magistrate's order, possession was finalized for 25.09.2023.

¶24

I have heard learned counsels of both parties and gone through the records.

¶25

The applicant alleges that the respondent bank failed to deliver the demand notice dated 19.01.2022 under Section 13(2)of the SARFAESI Act. The applicant claims that the possession notice dated 07.06.2022 is defective, as it does not specify a date for taking symbolic possession, leaving the relevant field blank. Additionally, they allege that the notice was published in newspapers-Sunmarg and Morning India-that are not widely circulated.

¶26

Upon perusal of the records, it is found that the demand notice dated 19.01.2022 was sent to the applicants and was duly served, as evident from R-4, pages 14-17 ~/

...Yv L \01...,0

J~./' D"

DRT,PATNA

SA 318 of 2023 [J)

¶31

of the counter affidavit.

¶32

Regarding the claim of the possession notice being defective, it is found that the column for taking possession is indeed blank, as evident from Annexure 2 at page )6 of the SA. Additionally, the possession notice annexed by the bank indicates that the date is mentioned in pen, as shown in Annexure ) of the counter affidavit, which clearly suggests that the bank attempted to correct its mistake.

¶33

As far as the allegation that the newspaper was not widely circulated, neither of the parties has filed any evidence in this regard.

¶34

In view of the above infirmity regarding possession notice, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The application SA 3) 8 of 2023 filed by MIS MAMTA ASSOCIATES through Proprietor Mr. Shardendu Kumar Singh, is allowed. The SARFAESI Action in question is hereby quashed. No order for co y /

-yt>v':>
\ 0' <br>Ob

[KaushalendraYadav1

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶41

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on thl~ Day of January, 2025.

¶42

thl~ /
."c~
01:> \ 0<br>

¶43

[KaushalendraYadav1

¶44

Presiding Officer

¶45

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Ms Mamta Associates and others v. Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Mamta Associates and others v. Indusind Bank Limited

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

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Asha Devi

Zainuddeen Thalangara Abdul Rahiman versus Hdfc Bank

Ritu Goel versus M/S India Credit Company Ltd.

Sh Ashish So Babulalji Jana versus Bank of Maharashtra

M/s Jai Bajrang Agro Farm Pvt. . Ltd. and Others versus Bank of India

Shankar Sahani versus Punjab National Bank