Dismissed

Shri Rajesh Kumar son of Late Shri Rehaman v. the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

DRT22 Jul 2025SA/418/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the notices were duly served, CERSAI registration was valid, and the applicant failed to prove the asset was agricultural land to attract statutory exemption.

What did the court decide?

Application to set aside notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) and restrain SARFAESI action was dismissed.

Shri Rajesh Kumar son of Late Shri Rehaman versus the Kangra… — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 418 of 2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 418 of 2024 Rajesh Kumar and another Versus

¶4

A.O., The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Limited

¶5

Dated: 22.07.2025

¶6

Item No. 17

¶7

Argued by: Mr.Vivek Verma, Counsel for the Applicants.

¶8

Mr.Yogesh Jain, Counsel for the Respondent Bank.

¶9

Rajesh Kumar and another (Applicants) have filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against the Authorized Officer, The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited (Respondent).

¶10

Admittedly, in the year 2018, Respondent Bank had sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 11.00 lacs to the Applicants. To secure the loan, Applicants had created security interest in respect of property, fully detailed in Schedule ‘C’ of the notice under Section 13(2), dated 01.07.2024. Applicants could not make the repayment of the loan. On 30.04.2019, Respondent Bank declared the account NPA. On 01.07.2024, it issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding a sum of Rs. 13,18,907/- within 60 days of the issuance of the notice. Since, the payment was not made, Respondent Bank issued the notice under Section 13(4) on 24.09.2024. On 08.10.2024, Applicants filed the present SA.

¶11

Applicants, in the SA, have alleged that the notice issued under Section 13(2), dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) is illegal and not enforceable under the law. Applicants dispute the amount mentioned in the said notice. Bank has charged high rate of interest. Applicants alleged that the possession notice dated 24.09.2024 was never served upon the

¶12

SA No. 418 of 2024

¶13

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶14

Applicants. It is stated that the secured asset was not registered with CERSAI and thus, under Section 26-D of the SARFAESI Act, the Bank cannot proceede under the SARFAESI Act. Applicants are ready and willing to settle the account. It is stated that the secured asset is agricultural land. Accordingly, the same is exempt from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. On these facts, Applicants filed the present SA on 08.10.2024 and prayed that the notices issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act be set aside and the Bank be restrained from taking any SARFAESI action.

¶15

Bank, in reply, has denied the case of the Applicants. It is alleged that the account was rightly declared NPA. To secure the loan, Applicants had created security interest in favour the Bank. It is stated that the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were duly served upon the Applicants. The charge is duly registered with CERSAI. It is stated that the secured asset is not agricultural land. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the present and the same be dismissed.

¶16

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶17

Admittedly, in the year 2018, Respondent Bank had sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 11.00 lacs to the Applicants. To secure the loan, Applicants had created security interest in favour the Bank. Applicants could not make the repayment of the loan. On 30.04.2019, Respondent Bank declared the account NPA. On 01.07.2024, it issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding a sum of Rs. 13,18,907/-. Since, the payment was not made, Respondent Bank issued the notice under Section 13(4) on 24.09.2024. The notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) were duly served upon the Applicants. Respondent Bank has also produced on the record the acknowledgment as well as postal receipts. The

¶18

SA No. 418 of 2024

¶19

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶20

possession notice was also published in the newspapers. Bank has also produced on the record CERSAI certificate which shows that the secured asset has been duly registered with the CERSAI. Applicant has also failed to prove that on the date the security interest was created, the secured asset was agricultural land.

¶21

In view of the above, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present SA. The same is hereby dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶22

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to both the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶23

Pronounced in open court Manoj/Dated: 22.07.2025

¶24

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

Shri Rajesh Kumar son of Late Shri Rehaman v. the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajesh Kumar son of Late Shri Rehaman v. the Kangra Central Cooperative 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

Harjit Kaur versus Hdfc Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dahikar Automobile,through Its Proprietor, Shri Sachin S/O. Vijay Dahikar

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sanjay Kumar

Mrs Sangita Biswas versus Bank of Baroda

Sri Binod Kumar Gupta Proprietor of M S Shiv Shakti Enterprise versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Joginder Singh