Dismissed

Rina Rai and Others v. Idbi Bank

DRT23 Jul 2025SA/404/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash SARFAESI possession action, the Drt held that despite acknowledgments regarding service, lack of proof of personal service of possession notice and non-joinder of a guarantor made the application not maintainable, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the SARFAESI possession action dismissed; no order as to costs.

Rina Rai and Others versus Idbi Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

ORT, PATNA

SA404 of 2022 [JJ

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

PresidingOfficer:Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 404 of 2022

¶7

Smt. Rina Rai, Wlo Sri Mohan Kumar Rai, Resident of - Flat No. 505, Nutal Vihar Apartment, B-Block, Colony More, Kankarbagh Main Road, Kankarbagh, Dist.-Patna-800020. (Borrower)

¶8

Sri Mohan Kumar Rai, Sio Lal Das Rai, Resident of - Flat No. 505, B- Block, Nutan Tower, Colony More, Kankarbagh Main Road, Kankarbagh, Dist. - Patna - 800 020. (Mortgagor)

¶9

......... Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Authorised Officer, IDBI Bank Ltd. UM Complex, Ground Floor, Fraser Road, Patna - 800001.

¶12

IDBI Bank Ltd., a body Corporate, Represented through the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, 3rd Floor, Sai Corporate Park, Rukunpura Bailey Road, P.S. - Rukunpura, P.O. - B.V. College, Dist - Patna - 800 014. Bihar.

¶13

--respondents

¶14

Present:

¶15

For the Applicant : Sh. A.K. Sharan,Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Sh.SantoshSatyarthi,Advocate

¶16

Dated: 23.07.2025

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Present application has been Bank filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESI action taken against the properties of applicant alongwith the possession notice issued by the respondent Bank.

¶19

The brief fact of the case is that the applicants availed Cash tredit facility of Rs.50 lacs from respondent Bank. To secure the loan facility, the applicant no. 2 mortgaged his property with the Bank. Due to default in repayment of

/
. :,,/)
')
rv

ORT, PATNA

SA404 of 2022 [J]

¶24

dues of the Bank, the account was classified as NPA on 30.11.2021. In order to recover outstanding dues the respondent Bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower by issuing Demand Notice dated 05.08.2022 u/s 13(2) of the act calling upon the borrower to make the payment of Rs.57,89,133/-. Thereafter, the respondent took possession of. the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 27.10.2022 U/S 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved from the Possession Notice, present SA has been filed by the applicants.

¶25

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicants that even after the pandemic of Covid-19, the account was maintained properly but all of sudden the respondent Bank issued Demand Notice dated 05.08.2022 and served to applicant. From the said Demand Notice, the applicant could know the account was classified as NPA on 30.11.2021 but the bank did not serve one month prior notice before classification of account as NPA. However, on receipt of Demand Notice, the applicant submitted its objection/representation dated 06.07.2022 before the Bank. The Bank without considering the objection and issue raised by the applicant in its objection petition, an evasive reply was sent by the Bank vide its reply dated 20.07.2022. The respondent Bank without serving the Possession Notice to

¶26

. the applicants published the possession notice in 'Prabhat Khabar' on 03.11.2022. The possession notice has also not been affixed on the secured asset. The property has also not been registered with CERSAI as mandatory under Section 20 of the SARFAESI act.

¶27

On the contrary, ld. Counsel of the respondent Bank submits that apart from the Cash Credit facility of Rs.50 lacs, the applicant has also availed FITL of Rs.7.08 lacs. After availing the loan facilities, the borrower failed to repay the same. Hence, the accounts were classified as NPA on 30.1l.2021. Thereafter, the respondent Bank initiated SARFAESI action against the borrower by issuing Demand Notice dated 05.08.2022. The said demand notice was served to the applicant through a post dated 10.08.2022 as also admitted by the applicants. Againstthe Demand Notice, the applicant made a representation/objection dated 06.07.2022 under section 13(3-A) which was

¶28

¶29

SA404 of 2022 [J]

¶30

ORT, PATNA

¶31

replied by the Bank through its reply dated 20.07.2022 and respondent Band proceeded further and took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 27.10.2022. The possession notice has been served to the applicant physically and also affixed on secured asset on secured asset. The possession notice was also published in 'Prabhat Khabar' and 'The Hindu' on 03.11.2022. The property has also been registered with Central Registry.

¶32

I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶33

It is alleged that without considering the objection and issue raised by the applicant in its objection petition uls l3(3-A), an evasive reply was sent by the Bank .vide its reply dated 20.07.2022. The Possession Notice has neither been served to the applicants nor affixed on secured assets. The property has also not been registered with CERSAI as mandatory under Section 20 of the SARFAESI act.

¶34

On perusal of records it appears that the Demand Notice dated 05.08.2022 was served to the applicants through post on 10.08.2021 as also admitted by the applicants in its application. Against the said demand notice, the borrower had submitted its representation dated 06.10.2022 before the Bank which was duly replied by the Bank vide its letter dated 20.10.2022 the copy thereof is the annexure - A/3, page 30 of SARFAESI application.

¶35

Thereafter, respondent Bank issued Possession Notice dated 27.10.2022 but .the respondent Bank failed to tile any proof of service of possession notice to the applicants. However, the possession notice was affixed on secured assets as appears from the annexure - 2B (i) and 2B(ii), page 13-14. To prove the publication of possession notice the respondent bank annexed the copy of publication as annexure -3 & 4, page 15-16 but the said annexures do not indicate the name of newspapers as well as date of its publication. However, the respondent Bank has stated in its counter affidavit that the possession notice was published in 'Prabhat Khabar' and 'The Hindu' on 03.11.2022. The respondent Bank has also attached the proof of registration of property with the CERSAI as anne~ure - 5, page 17 which shows that the property was registered with Central Registry.

¶36

¶37

DRT, PATNA

¶38

SA404 of 2022 [J]

¶39

At the same time it is not out of place to consider the effect of non- joinder of the guarantor Avinash Mohan in the present application. Non-joinder of aforesaid necessary party gives rise to the multiplicity of judicial proceedings. At the same time the possibility of willingness of other stakeholders to pay the dues as demanded by the respondent cannot be ruled out. If they are willing the purpose of the present SARF AESI Application will get infructuous. The controversy involved in this case cannot effectively be decided and executed effectively without affording an opportunity of hearing to the aforesaid guarantor. Accordingly, the present application is not maintainable without impleading the guarantor. In the above circumstances despite the aforesaid infirmities, no relief can be granted to the applicant.

¶40

In view of the above discussion, the present application deserves to be dismissed.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The application SA 404 of2022, is dismissed. No order for costs.7/

. ~'...,\ ry

[Kaushalendra Yadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶47

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court o~~~./ 23RD Day of July, 2025. ->: ~/ ....0

¶48

v( ~~\7\

¶49

[Kaushalendra Yadav]

¶50

Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Rina Rai and Others v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rina Rai and Others v. Idbi 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

Manik Roy and another versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Balvir Singh

Uco Bank versus M/S Aloft Trucking Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Tushar Kanti Das versus Murshidabad District Central Co-Operative Bank

Ms Remission Diagnostic and Poly Clinic Center and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India)

Ms Pyasa Plastic Industries and others versus State Bank of India