Partly allowed

Madhuri Jagdish Shahane v. Pravara Sahakari Bank Ltd.

DRT23 Jul 2025SA/375/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal decision addressed an applicant's challenge against a bank's sale notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court observed that the vehicle was surrendered by the guarantor and applicant's family, not forcibly taken by the bank. The application was allowed to the extent of directing the bank to restore vehicle possession upon full payment of dues by a specified deadline.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent bank to restore possession of the vehicle to the applicant upon deposit of the overdue amount by 14.08.2025.

Madhuri Jagdish Shahane versus Pravara Sahakari… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 25.11.2023 Registered on: 02.12.2023 Decided on: 23.07.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 07 28

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J.R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.375/2023

¶3

Madhuri w/o Jagdish Shahane (Borrower) Age:- 44 yrs, Occ: Homemaker. R/oRushigold Malewada, Near Maruti mandir, Tal- Sangamner, Dist- Anmednagar. At present C/o Ram Dattatray Maid Hasnapur road, Near Apna Bajar, Loni Bk, Tal- Rahata, Dist- Ahmednagar.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Pravara Sahakari Bank Ltd, (Scheduled Bank) Loni Bk, TalRahata, DistAhmednagar. Through its Authorised Officer 2. Jagdish Laxaman Shahane (Gaurantor-1) R/oRushigold Malewada, Near Maruti mandir, Tal- Sangamner, Dist- Anmednagar. 3. Sima Ram Dahale (Gaurantor-2) Age- Major, Occu- Homemaker, R/o- Sonar Galli, Loni Bk, TalRahata, Dist- Anmednagar.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

APPEARANCES For the Applicants

¶9

Mr. A.C. Darandale - Advocate

¶10

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 1 of 30

¶11

For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 & 3

¶12

Mr. P.K. Nikam – Advocate Mr. R.A. Tambe - Advocate

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Delivered on 23^rd July, 2025)

¶15

This Securitization Application No.375/2023 has filed by the applicant against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. This Securitisation Application is filed by the applicant to challenge the sale notice dated 26.10.2023 issued by the respondent No.1 bank in putting the property of the applicant for sale. The applicant also sought relief that the measures taken by the respondent No.1 is not in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and may be declared as invalid, illegal and void. In respect of the charging of interest, penal interest and other charges sought from the applicant during the period from the date of illegal physical possession of the car i.e. from 04.02.2023 till its restoration, prayed for appropriate orders and also for restoration of the possession of the car having Registration No.MH-17-CM-8788 to the applicant. So also the applicant prayed for direction to the respondent to pay the compensation and cost to the applicant.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶17

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 2 of 30

¶18

The applicant submitted that the applicant is homemaker and was in need of finance to purchase a car and therefore, made an application to the respondent bank seeking car loan. The application of the applicant along with necessary documents were considered and sanctioned a car to loan of Rs.18 Lakh (Rupees Eighteen Lacs only) with rate of interest @9.25% P.A was sanctioned to the applicant for purchase of a car. The term of the said loan is 7 years i.e upto 08.10.2028 with Rs.29,000/- installment per month. The respondent No.2 and 3 are the guarantors to the said car loan. The Applicant further submitted that the respondent No.1 disbursed the said Car Loan on 08.10.2021 and as such the car was purchased by the application having Registration No. MH-17-CM-8788. The respondent No.1 has initiated the recovery proceedings against the applicant. The applicant submitted that, the applicant has paid Rs.4,09,270/towards the said car loan installments till 06.01.2023 i.e within 15 months from the date of disbursement of loan.

¶19

It is submitted by the applicant that in the month of February 2023 husband of the applicant absconded as some criminal inquiry were initiated and the offence was lodged against him. Therefore, the said car was with the

¶20

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 3 of 30

¶21

respondent No.2. It is important to note that, on 04.01.2023 to 06.01.2023 the amount of Rs.45,000/- was paid towards the loan installments. The applicant submitted that, though there was no default in the payment in the month of January 2023 however, the respondent bank immediately on 04.02.2023 illegally taken possession of the said car from the respondent No.2. At the time of taking possession of the car, respondent bank has taken signatures of the respondent No.2 on documents which were not furnished to the applicant. It is submitted that before taking possession of the said car neither prior intimation nor any notice was served to the applicant.

¶22

It is further submitted by the applicant that thereafter the applicant visited the respondent bank and asked about the surprise action taken by the bank. The applicant also requested to furnish the necessary papers regarding the action information/documents taken by the bank. However, no information /documents were furnished to the applicant. It was informed that, as the husband of the applicant is absconded due to registration of criminal offence, the applicant should pay total loan amount and thereafter the possession would be handed over to the

¶23

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 4 of 30

¶24

applicant. The applicant further submitted that, the applicant time and again visited the respondent bank however it was informed that, the loan account is termed as NPA on 31.03.2023 and if the total amount is not paid, the car would be sold in the auction proceedings. The applicant submits that the husband of the applicant is still absconding and therefore the applicant could not arrange the total loan amount as directed by the respondent bank. The applicant states that, as car is with the bank since February 2023 the applicant has not paid the installments since then.

¶25

The applicant further submitted that she has not received any communication from the respondent bank regarding the car loan. The respondent No.2 guarantor has informed on 21.11.2023 that a sale notice on 26.10.2023 has issued by the respondent No.1 bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The said sale notice shows the name of the applicant however, the applicant is not residing at the address given thereon since February 2023. The applicant submitted that, the sale notice states that, on 27.04.2023 a demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued demanding a due amount of Rs.16,18,439/- with future interest. Also it states that, as the due amount is not paid the respondent

¶26

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 5 of 30

¶27

bank has taken possession of the car on 04.09.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFESI Act. The said sale notice further states that, if the applicant fails to pay the due amount within 30 days of issuance of notice, the car of the applicant would be sold in public auction. After getting knowledge of the sale notice, the applicant immediately on 23.11.2023 visited the respondent bank and deposited Rs.1,00,000/- cash in the said loan account and requested to stall the auction proceeding. The officer of the bank accepted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- however did not accept the application seeking stay of auction sale. Therefore, immediately the applicant has sent the application dated 24.11.2023 by post to the respondent bank.

¶28

It is further submitted by the applicant that she has availed a Car Loan of Rs.18 Lacs with agreed rate of interest and installments from the respondent bank. She also submitted that she had paid Rs.4,09,270/- towards the said loan amount till January 2023. Since her husband absconded, the car is with the respondent No.2. The applicant further submitted that the respondent bank without giving any demand notice to the applicant has forcefully and illegally

¶29

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 6 of 30

¶30

taken possession of the car on 4^th February, 2023 from the respondent no.2. The respondent bank has not provided the documents to the applicant regarding taking over the possession of the movable property i.e the car of the applicant. The applicant submitted that the respondent bank has not served the alleged demand notice dated 27^th April, 2023 to the applicant as stated in the sale notice. It is mandatory upon the bank to serve the demand notice to the borrower before initiating any recovery proceeding. It is submitted by the applicant that, the demand notice dated 27^th April, 2023 is not served to the applicant as per the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Therefore, the alleged demand notice dated 27^th April, 2023 being in violation of the procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and rules thereunder is illegal and void.

¶31

It is further submitted by the applicant that in view of section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, if the borrower makes any default in repayment of the debt or any installment thereon, the secured creditor may issue a demand notice to the borrower. The applicant has not made any “default” in the repayment of the installment in the month of February

¶32

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 7 of 30

¶33

The present loan account of the applicant does not fall under the category of “default” as contemplated under S.13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The applicant submits that, a farce has been created by the bank showing that the applicant is in default in payment and has illegally initiated the recovery proceeding against the applicant. The respondent bank has illegally taken physical possession of the car of the applicant on 4^th February, 2023 i.e. before issuing alleged demand notice dated 27^th April, 2023. Therefore, the action taking possession of the movable property i.e. car is illegal and contrary to the prescribed procedure under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is submitted by the applicant that the respondent bank has taken physical possession of the car from the respondent No.2 that too without prior intimation to the applicant. The possession receipt has not been furnished to the applicant till today. This action of taking possession of the motor vehicle is totally illegal and contrary as per the procedure prescribed under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and under Rule 4 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is further submitted by the applicant that before declaring the loan account as NPA the physical

¶34

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 8 of 30

¶35

possession of the motor vehicle of the applicant is taken which is illegal and void-ab-initio. The loan account of the applicant terms as NPA on 31^st March, 2023. Considering the account statement, the applicant has paid installments regularly till January 2023. The action of the bank is totally highhandedly and malafide. On 04.02.2023 the respondent bank has taken physical possession of the car and immediately the account is illegally declared as NPA on 31.03.2023 without giving any demand notice to the applicant and without following the due process of law.

¶36

The applicant further submitted that the certain amount deposited by the applicant is not considered in the account statement maintained by the respondent bank. The amount shown as interest in the account statement is illegal, exorbitant and contrary to the agreed terms between the parties. The applicant also disputes in respect of the amount shown in the sale notice dated 26.10.2023 issued by the respondent bank. It is further submitted by the applicant that the demand notice dated 27^th April, 2023, and the alleged notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the impugned sale notice dated 26^th October, 2023 are not served upon the applicant. Hence, the recovery proceeding

¶37

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 9 of 30

¶38

initiated by the bank at its inception is illegal and void-abinitio and is in violation of principles of natural justice and is thus illegal. It appears that, the bank has intended to sell the car of the applicant in an auction proceeding without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The impugned sale notice thus suffers from the basic principles of natural justice and the principles of audi alteram partem has not been followed. Therefore, the action of the respondent bank and the sale notice dated 26^th October, 2023 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence needs to be quashed and set aside.

¶39

It is further submitted by the applicant that the respondent to follow the procedure while conducting recovery proceeding as prescribed by the special statute. It is submitted by the applicant that the respondent bank and its officers have acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, malafide and without having any regards to the relevant requirements of the said Act. In view of grounds raised herein above the entire recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent bank is vitiated and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. It is also necessary to hold and declare that the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent bank in

¶40

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 10 of 30

¶41

view of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is illegal, arbitrary, null and void being contrary to the record and violative of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The applicant apprehends that the respondent bank will sell the car of the applicant and there is no other alternate efficacious remedy available to the applicant to approach this Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The applicant further submitted that she is ready to pay the due installments till February 2023 and prayed for restoration of the possession of the car forthwith. After restoration of the possession of the car, the applicant is ready to pay further monthly installments as agreed between the parties.

¶42

The applicant submitted that the applicant has good case on merits and prayed for stay to the recovery proceeding initiated by the respondent No.1 bank against the applicant and also for stay to the impugned sale notice dated 26.10.2023 issued by the respondent No.1 bank and also prayed for allowing the present Securitisation Application.

¶43

The respondents No.1 bank appeared and filed its Affidavit in Reply / Say marked Exh.6 on 15.02.2024. Though the respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel on

¶44

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 11 of 30

¶45

3^rd January, 2025 but failed to file their say.

¶46

The respondent No.1 filed its say / reply vide Exhibit-6 and thereby submitted that the applicant though has paid Rs.4,09,270/- till 06.01.2023. The Applicant has made the delayed payments and when the said account had become N.P.A., the Guarantor namely Seema Ram Dahale, her son namely Shravan Dahale and the father of the Applicant namely Mr. Ram Maid had suo-motu visited the Branch and handed over the custody of the Car to the Bank so as to recover loan by auctioning the said vehicle. The said Respondent No.3 and the father of the applicant Mr. Ram Maid had specifically informed that, the car if not is taken in custody of Bank, the same would be disposed of by applicant elsewhere and the loan would be defaulted. Therefore, in order to avoid the liability that would be fastened on the guarantor i.e. the respondent No.3 herein, the said car has been given in custody of the Bank by the said guarantor and the father of the applicant namely Mr. Ram Maid. The Panchanama to that effect has been drawn on 04.02.,2023 and the same is duly signed by the father of the applicant namely Mr. Ram Maid, the Guarantor Seema Ram Dahale i.e. respondent No.3 herein

¶47

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 12 of 30

¶48

and her son Shravan Dahale. It is true and correct that the criminal cases against the husband of the applicant have been lodged. The husband of the Applicant had cheated number of financial institutions by providing false valuation to the customers who have availed the Gold loan and had committed huge fraud in the financial institutions. Believing on the valuation given by the husband of the Applicant, the financial institutions had advanced huge gold loans and when the cheating committed by the husband of the Applicant was revealed the criminal complaints were and are lodged against him and hence the Applicant alongwith her husband had absconded from the vicinity. The intention of the Applicant and her husband is of cheating from beginning and they have earned huge money from said cheating. The intention of the Applicant was to dispose of the car in question and hence the Guarantor to the said Car Loan when sensed the illintention of the Applicant, had Suo motu brought the vehicle in the Bank and handed over the custody of the same to the Recovery Officer of the bank namely Mr. Adinath Waman Atak. It is further false to allege that, there was no any default in the payment of the installments by

¶49

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 13 of 30

¶50

the applicant. The applicant since beginning had committed default in making payment of loan installments and hence the interest was levied on such delayed payment including penal interest over the same. It is also false to allege that, the respondent No.1 bank has not intimated the applicant herein as has been alleged by the applicant.

¶51

The respondent No.1 bank further submitted that the respondent no.3, guarantor was well aware of the intention of the applicant of disposing of the vehicle in order to avoid the liability and repayment of the loan and hence has taken action of handing over the possession of the vehicle with the respondent bank. The Applicant is having sufficient funds and has a capacity to pay the outstanding loan in one installment. The Applicant has enjoyed the public money and now does not want to repay the same. The Applicant, therefore, is taking the defence of the lodging of the criminal cases against her husband. It is also denied by the respondent bank that the applicant is not aware of the communication done by the respondent bank. It is submitted that, the Guarantor is the close relative of the applicant and when the deponent had visited to the applicant and the guarantor for demanding the repayment

¶52

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 14 of 30

¶53

of the car loan, they have specifically informed him that, they are not in a position to repay the same and they further had informed him that, the respondent No.3 herein would give the car in Bank’s custody so as to sell the same in order to recover outstanding loan. Accordingly, the said vehicle has been given in the custody of the bank by the father of the applicant Mr. Ram Maid and the guarantor i.e. the respondent No.3 herein alongwith her son Shravan Dahale. The Respondent Bank further submitted that, if the applicant pays the entire outstanding amount with interests as agreed, the respondent bank is ready to release the same to the applicant. However, the Applicant is not at all in a mood to pay the amount outstanding at the foot of her loan account and hence there is no other alternative to Respondent Bank but to sell the said vehicle in public auction and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the loan account of the applicant herein.

¶54

It is further submitted by the respondent No.1 that the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by cash is a matter of record. At the time of depositing the said amount total outstanding amount was more than rs.16,35,689/- alongwith overdue interest and penal interest. But the applicant did not pay

¶55

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 15 of 30

¶56

any amount after 23.11.2023. The applicant did not repay the loan on time and as such the said loan account had become NPA on 31.03.2023 and hence the respondent bank has no other alternative but to initiate the action for auction of the same and recover the public money. It is false to allege that there was no any default made by the applicant in the month of February, 2023. The last payment received by the bank is on 06.01.2023 which is Rs.15,000/- in cash and thereafter only on 23.11.2023, the applicant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in the said loan account. It is false that the bank has illegally taken the possession of the car. It is already pointed out that Guarantor Sima Ram Dahale and father of the applicant namely Mr. Ram Maid had been to the bank and had delivered possession of the vehicle with the bank and the panchanama to that respect is drawn.

¶57

The respondent bank nowhere violated the provisions of the Statute. The demand notice was duly served upon the applicant and the guarantors. The applicant and the guarantors had informed the officer of the bank that they are not in a position to repay the loan and they had requested the bank the vehicle would be given in possession of the bank and the bank may sell the same and recover the

¶58

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 16 of 30

¶59

loan out of the sale proceeds. The applicant herself told the officer of the bank that due to lodging of the criminal cases against her husband the applicant is undergoing financial crisis and would not be in a position to pay the loan amount. The respondent bank had affixed the demand notice upon the door of the house of the applicant and had also issued the paper proclamation demanding the loan amount outstanding towards the applicant. The respondent bank has strictly followed the procedure laid down in the statute. It is incorrect and false that the bank has taken over the possession of the car from the applicant on 04.02.2023 prior to the demand notice dated 27.04.2023. The bank has taken the physical possession of the vehicle on 04.09.2023 from the Recovery Officer of the bank namely Mr. Adinath Atak and the panchanama to that effect has been drawn. It is incorrect that the applicant had paid installments regularly since she had availed the loan from the bank till January-2023. As the applicant had not paid any amount from January 2023, the loan account had become NonPerforming Asset on 31.03.2023. The applicant has failed to place on record any cogent evidence as to show that the respondent bank has committed any illegalities or

¶60

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 17 of 30

¶61

highhandedness. Instead of repaying the loan amount and getting the vehicle released, the applicant has chosen to file the present proceedings and therefore, deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.

¶62

The respondent No.1 bank further submitted that the applicant has not placed on record any evidence as to which the amounts are not considered which are deposited by the applicant hence denied. The respondent bank has not committed any error while applying the interest and penal interest and has also not committed any illegality in the statement of the loan account while applying the interest and penal interest. The Respondent Bank further submits that, it has followed the procedure laid down in the statute strictly and has not violated any of such provision. The applicant is unnecessarily creating hurdle in the recovery process initiated by the respondent bank. The Applicant has every knowledge about the demand notice and the notice U/sec.13(4) of the Statute. She is also aware of the auction notice issued subsequently by the respondent bank and therefore, immediately deposited Rs.3,00,000/on 31.01.2024 in cash. This itself is very much clear that the applicant is having every knowledge of the process

¶63

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 18 of 30

¶64

undertaken by the respondent bank. The total outstanding loan amount as on 31.01.2024 after receiving the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from applicant in cash is Rs.13,66,566/-. If the applicant does not want the auction to be held, she has every capacity to pay the outstanding amount as on date in one stroke. However, without paying the amount of loan due towards her, she wants the auction should be held up and the applicant should not be asked to repay the amount, which cannot be permitted by law. The Respondent Bank undertakes to pay the balance sale proceeds after recovering the loan amount outstanding from the Applicant with interest. However, it would not be appropriate to stall the process of auction of the vehicle as the value of the vehicle would depreciate as the period would pass. The Respondent Bank would be put to heavy losses if the auction of vehicle is stayed. The applicant in order to create a ground for challenging the SARFAESI action initiated by the bank had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- after a span of near about 10 months. The present proceedings being devoid of merits and hence the same deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.

¶65

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 19 of 30

¶66

It is further submitted by the respondent No.1 that the applicant has availed the Car Loan of Rs.18,00,000/- and agreed to repay the same in 84 equated monthly installment of Rs.29,000/- each. The Applicant, however, instead of repaying the loan amount as agreed did not pay the installments regularly and hence the penal interest was levied at each time when the loan installment had become overdue. The applicant did not pay any amount after 06.01.2023 and therefore, the said loan account had become NPA on 31-03-2023. Thereafter, the Applicant has only paid a meager amount of Rs.l,00,000/- in cash on 23.11.2023 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 31.01.2024. The total outstanding amount as on 31.01.2024 is Rs.13,66,566/- alongwith interest thereon which the applicant legally is liable to pay and the Respondent Bank legally is entitled to recover. The vehicle if is auctioned the entire recovery would be done and the balance amount after recovery can be credited/paid to the applicant. Therefore, there is absolutely no any ground made out by the applicant in the application which can be considered to stall the process of auction of the vehicle. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.

¶67

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 20 of 30

¶68

The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the respondent bank has illegally taken possession of Car No. MH-17-CM-8788 on 04.02.2023 despite there was no overdue amount. It was further argued that the respondent bank thereafter declared the loan account as NPA on 31.03.2023. It was further argued that when the respondent bank issued sale notice on 26.10.2023 for sale of the vehicle, the present Securitisation Application was moved.

¶69

It was further argued that the applicant visited the respondent bank on 23.11.2023 and deposited Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lac only). It was further argued that the when during pendency of the present Securitisation Application, the learned Tribunal vide Joint Pursis Exhibit-6 directed the applicant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.2,36,000/(Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Six Thousand only) but the vehicle was not released by the respondent bank. It was also argued that on query from the bank, the bank stated overdue amount of Rs.2,34,756/- (Rupees Two Lacs ThirtyFour Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Six only) on 29.10.2024 and thereafter the applicant has paid Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Six Thousand only) on 21.11.2024 and on visit to the bank the possession of the

¶70

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 21 of 30

¶71

vehicle was not handed over to the applicant and even the respondent bank as well as the Authorised Officer of the bank namely Mr. Vadile has committed contempt of court and for the same purpose, the applicant has filed Interlocutory Application No.1114/2025. It was also argued that the respondent bank could not demand outstanding as on the date of payment of Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Six Thousand only) as it was disclosed as Rs.2,34,756/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Six only) during proceeding before the Tribunal on 29.10.2024 and in this manner the respondent bank has not only harassed the applicant but caused disobedience of the order of this Tribunal and prayed for allowing the main Securitisation Application.

¶72

On the otherside, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the respondent bank has not taken possession of the vehicle but the possession of the vehicle was surrendered by the respondent No.3 Seema Ram Dahale (Guarantor No.2) and sister of the present applicant in presence of her father namely Ram Maid and her son namely Shravan Dahale after suo-motu visiting the bank and after handing over the custody of the car to the bank so

¶73

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 22 of 30

¶74

as to recover the loan by auctioning the said car. It was further argued that guarantor Seema Ram Dahale and the father of the applicant Ram Maid has specifically informed otherwise the same would be disposed of elsewhere by the applicant and the loan would be defaulted and in order to avoid the liability, the guarantor respondent No.3 voluntarily surrendered the custody of the car to the bank and Panchanama was drawn on 04.02.2023 duly signed by the father of the applicant and her sister guarantor Seema Ram Dahale and her son Shravan Dahale. It was further argued that thereafter no installment has been paid by the applicant and consequently loan of the applicant was declared NPA on 31.03.2023 and the car was put on sale vide notice dated 26.10.2023 but the respondent bank could not sale away the car due to SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the applicant.

¶75

It was further argued that during pendency of the SARFAESI proceedings, the applicant prayed for paying the entire overdue amount and to get released the vehicle. The applicant has produced Joint Pursis Exhibit-6 but it was not signed by the bank and overdue amount was tentatively disclosed before this Tribunal on 29.10.2024 as Rs.2,34,756/-

¶76

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 23 of 30

¶77

(Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Six only) but the applicant paid the overdue amount of Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Six Thousand only) and the bank demanded the overdue amount calculated at the time of payment of Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Six Thousand only) which came out more than this amount but the applicant remained adamant to pay the amount as reflected in query dated 29.10.2024 and due to this reason the vehicle could not be released to the applicant and even bank is ready to release the custody of the vehicle to the applicant in case she deposits entire overdue amount on the date of payment. It was further argued that the respondent bank is proceeding further against the vehicle as per provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder and prayed for dismissal of the Securitisation Application of the applicant.

¶78

After hearing both the sides and going through the material on record, I am of the considered view that the present Securitisation Application is liable to be accepted only to the extent of releasing the vehicle on payment of overdue amount.

¶79

The applicant has not disputed the factum of taking loan of

¶80

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 24 of 30

¶81

Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs only) for purchasing of vehicle and tenure of the loan was seven years i.e. upto 2028. The entire loan was repayable in seven years at a monthly installment of Rs.29,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Thousand only) per month. The rate of interest was agreed between the parties as @9.25% per annum with monthly rests as per Sanction Letter dated 17.09.2021.

¶82

The applicant herself in her Securitisation Application has specifically admitted that the possession of the vehicle was taken by the bank from the custody of the respondent No.3. Admittedly, the respondent No.3 is the guarantor of the applicant and she is real sister of the applicant.

¶83

It may be noted here that it has come in the pleadings that husband of the applicant who was guarantor was absconding and there was likelihood of non-payment of the loan installments by the applicant or she (applicant) may sale away the vehicle to somewhere else which would lead to default in the loan account. The respondent No.3, guarantor of the applicant suo-motu surrendered the vehicle to the bank in presence of her son as well as father of the applicant on 04.02.2023. The plea of the applicant that the bank has taken forcible possession of the vehicle despite

¶84

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 25 of 30

¶85

the fact that the account was regular, is not sustainable as the Panchanama dated 04.02.2023 (Exh R1) has been signed by the father of the applicant, her sister (the guarantor) respondent No.3 as well as son of the respondent No.3. No doubt, thereafter the installments were not paid and ultimately account was declared as Non-Performing Asset on 31.03.2023. The respondent bank issued Demand Notice for Rs.16,18,439/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty-Nine only) on 27.04.2023. Thereafter the bank proceeded further to sell the vehicle by issuing Sale Notice dated 26.10.2023. The applicant approached to the respondent bank and requested to stop the sale of the vehicle and paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) on 23.11.2023 and vide application dated 24.11.2023 requested the respondent bank for paying the overdue installment till January-2024. The applicant filed Securitisation Application No.375/2023 on 24.11.2023 alongwith stay of sale vide Interlocutory Application No.2353/2023. The Tribunal vide Order dated 16.02.2024, status-quo in respect of the vehicle was granted and in this manner, the sale of the vehicle could not be proceeded further.

¶86

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 26 of 30

¶87

During the Pendency of the present Securitisation Application, the applicant proposed for settlement and to pay the overdue amount and this Tribunal during the course of hearing on 29.10.2024 made a query to the bank about the overdue amount which was disclosed Rs.2,34,756/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Six only). The applicant paid Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Six Thousand only) on 21.11.2024 but the respondent bank claimed that to pay the entire overdue amount as it exists on 21.11.2024 but the applicant was adamant to pay the amount as disclosed by the bank on 29.10.2024 and settled between the parties as per Joint Pursis Exhibit-6. On perusal of Joint Pursis Exhibit-6, it was signed by the applicant and not by the bank. The applicant could have paid the total overdue amount as demanded by the bank on the date of payment of Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty-Six Thousand only) on 21.11.2024 in order to avoid any controversy and to get released her vehicle but the applicant / borrower did not pay the overdue amount as existing on 21.11.2024.

¶88

As the respondent bank did not release the vehicle on account of non-payment of the existing overdue amount,

¶89

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 27 of 30

¶90

the present applicant has also filed Interlocutory Application No.1114/2025 for initiating contempt proceedings against the bank and Authorised Officer namely Sushant Hiraman Vadile. This Interlocutory Application No.1114/2025 has been duly replied by the respondent bank. It has also claimed that the respondent bank has intimated the borrower to pay the overdue amount as existing on the date of payment but she refused for the same and due to this reason, the dispute has proceeded further. The bank is still ready to release the vehicle to the applicant on payment of overdue amount existing today and they have no objection to release the vehicle to the applicant and thereafter the applicant shall pay the EMI regularly. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, the Interlocutory Application No.1114/2025 moved by the applicant is not sustainable as in order to regularize the loan account, it is necessary for the applicant to pay the overdue amount on the date of payment and to get released her vehicle and thereafter to pay the EMI regularly. More-so, in this case even the guarantor of the applicant being her sister, Respondent No.3 and her father having apprehension that the applicant

¶91

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 28 of 30

¶92

would sell away the vehicle and account may be defaulted and due to this reason, even they voluntarily surrendered the possession of the vehicle to the bank. Therefore, there is no fault of the bank as regards taking possession of the vehicle and plea of forcible possession taken by the applicant is apparently not sustainable from the averments itself made in the Securitisation Application as it is submitted that the possession of the vehicle was taken from respondent No.3 Guarantor.

¶93

Keeping in view of the above referred circumstances, the applicant has sought relief for restoration of possession of Car having Registration No.MH-17-CM-8788 to the applicant. In such circumstances, the respondent bank is directed to provide the overdue amount of the loan account existing as on 31.07.2025 and in case the applicant pay the entire overdue amount existing on 31.07.2025 by 14.08.2025, in that case the respondent bank is directed to restore the possession of the vehicle to the applicant and thereafter the applicant shall pay EMI regularly. In case the applicant fails to pay the overdue amount within this stipulated period, the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further with the sale of the vehicle in accordance with law.

¶94

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 29 of 30

¶95

29. In view of above observations, I pass the following order. ORDER

¶96

(A) Securitisation Application No.375/2023 is hereby allowed to the extent that the vehicle No.MH-17-CM-8788 be released to the applicant on depositing by her overdue amount existing in bank record as on 31.07.2025 by 14.08.2025, in default thereof, the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further with the sale of the vehicle as per law.

¶97

(B) The applicant / borrower is further directed to pay EMI regularly after release of the vehicle.

¶98

¶99

(D) File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.

¶100

Pronounced in open Court. Date : 23.07.2025.

¶101

Sd/(Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶102

[SBJ] (SA No.375/2023) Page 30 of 30

Madhuri Jagdish Shahane v. Pravara Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri Jagdish Shahane v. Pravara Sahakari Bank Ltd.

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

Union Bank of India versus M S Sai Prasad Traders

Rajesh Moreshwar Desai versus Hdfc Bank

Ms Marathwada Krushi Seva Kendra versus Union Bank of India

Mhainsaji Ganpati Mendhevad versus M S Equitas Housing Finance Limited

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus Bhausaheb Suryabhan Manore

Savita Deepak Pawar versus Aavas Financiers Limited