Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a SARFAESI application, setting aside the bank's enforcement action due to discrepancies in demand notice dispatch dates and non-service of possession notices to all applicants.
Entire SARFAESI action set aside. Application allowed with costs.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATNA
| Date of order or proceeding |
Order with the Signature of the Court |
Office action taken with date |
|---|---|---|
| SA 422 of 2023 | ||
| 03.09.2025 | Mr. Pihu Agro Tech &Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank Ld. counsels for the parties are present. Ld. counsel for the respondent submits that the record of postal dispatch is not available with the respondent bank and the parties are ready to argue the case today itself. Ithas been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the respondent has initiated the SARFAESI Action without following the mandatory provisions of law. The demand notice itself has not been properly delivered and the respondent has manipulated the record with regards to the dispatch of the aforesaid demand notice from annexure A-I at page no.17. The demand notice has been issued on 06.05.2023 but the postal dispatch was made on 04.05.2023. It appears that there is a manipulation by the respondent bank just to jeopardize the interest of the applicants by sending the demand notice prior to the date of its issuance. Ld. counsel for the applicant further submits that the possession notice was not delivered upon all the applicants. It was delivered upon applicant no.2 & 4 only. It has been categorically submitted that the possession notice has not been served to the applicant no.l, 3& 5. Hence the SARFAESI Action initiated by the respondent is against the provisions of law. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent submits that there is no discrepancy in the SARFAESI Action initiated by the respondent against the applicants. The demand notice was duly sent after the date of its issuance. Theicant istry,to get benefit of the fact that the original record is notadl,ife the office of the bank. So is the case with the possession notice. In view of the above circumstances, it is not disputed that the averment made in the SARFAESI Application with regards to the dispatch of the demand notice i.e, two days prior to the date of its issuance and non service of the possession notice to all of the applicants. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the postal tracking repo~ haen fi by the respondent |
Contd.2 |
| to show that the demand notice was dispatched on 06.05.2023 only but ld. | |
|---|---|
| counsel for the respondent has pointed out and submitted the envelop which | |
| 03.09.2025 | has been sent to him that bears the ref. no. RF320507965IN whereas the postal tracking report which has been filed by the respondent alongwith the counter affidavit at page no.34 bears the reference and consignment no. RF3205066580IN. It appears that the postal tracking report has not been filed for the consignment it was actually sent to the applicant. This situation could have been clarified by filing the original record of dispatch or the proper tracking report corresponding to the consignment delivered to the applicant. As the aforesaid document has not been filed there remains no option except to draw adverse inference against the respondent at this stage. Accordingly, the respondent could not controvert the allegations made in the SARFAESI Application. |
| Consequently the present SARFAESI Application succeeds. The entire SARFAESI Action initiated by the respondent against the applicant is hereby set-aside. The present SA is allowed with cost. The respondent will not be entitled to get the cost and charges against the SARFAESI Action under challenged. |
|
| Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website. Patna k\O(l~ (Kaushalendra Yadav) Presiding Officer |
Mr. Pihu Agro Tech & Ors.
Kaushalendra Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
