Allowed

Ms Gaurav Products through Its Proprietor Purushotam Dass on of Shri Kasturi Lal v. the Authorized Officer Bajaj Finance Limited

DRT17 Sept 2025SA/423/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal set aside an auction of a secured property conducted under the SARFAESI Act due to defects in CERSAI registration, insufficient property description in notices, and failure to publish notices in widely circulated local newspapers. The auction purchaser was directed to be refunded the deposit with interest, while the secured creditor was ordered to retain possession.

What did the court decide?

The auction is set aside. The auction purchaser is to be refunded Rs. 21,25,000 with interest at 6% within 15 days. The respondent must retain possession.

Ms Gaurav Products through Its Proprietor Purushotam Dass on… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA/423/2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/423/2024

¶4

M/S GAURAV PRODUCTS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR PURUSHOTAM DASS SON OF SHRI KASTURI LAL Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED

¶5

17.09.2025

¶6

ITEM NO. 56

¶7

Argued by: Mr. Sahil Khunger Advocate along with Mr. Purushotam Dass, Applicant in person (SA) Mr. Anirudh Gupta Advocate along with Ms Shivani Garg, Legal Manager for the Respondent FI Ms Puja Sharma, Auction Purchaser along with Mr. Sachin Sharma, Husband of the Auction Purchaser (through VC)

¶8

M/s Gaurav Products 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 Authorised Officer, Bajaj Finance Limited and others (Respondents).

¶9

Admittedly, on 30.04.2017, Respondent Bajaj had sanctioned a Home Loan of Rs.29,85,000/- to the Applicant. Applicant could not make the repayment and the Respondent declared the account of the Applicant NPA. On 14.01.2022, Respondent issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act demanding Rs.33,50,000/-. Since the payment was not made, on 21.04.2022, Respondent issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. This led the Applicant to file Civil Writ Petition No.10558 of 2022 in the Hon’ble High Court wherein on 03.08.2022, the Hon’ble High Court ordered him to pay Rs.10 lacs. On 15.12.2022, Applicant deposited Rs.6 lacs. CWP No.10558 of 2022 was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court on 30.09.2024. Since the Applicant had deposited the money by which the account had been regularized, the Respondent stopped the SARFAESI action.

¶10

¶11

SA/423/2024

¶12

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶13

However, the account of the Applicant was again declared NPA on 01.12.2023. At that time, a sum of Rs.31,17,519/- was due. On 20.12.2023, Respondent issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. On 19.02.2024, Applicant filed the objections under Section 13(3)(a). On 17.06.2025, Respondent issued the auction notice for 26.07.2025 at the reserve price of Rs.21 lacs. This auction was successful. Ms Pooja Sharma (the Auction Purchaser) gave the highest bid of Rs.21,25,000/- which was deposited by her within time. Since the property was sold during the pendency of the SA, Applicant filed the application for amendment of the SA and for impleading the Auction Purchaser. Both applications were allowed and a notice was issued to the Auction Purchaser who put in appearance before this Tribunal.

¶14

Mr. Khunger, counsel for the Applicant argues that the auction dated 26.07.2025 is bad in the eye of the law. He states that there is no proper CERSAI registration. The description of the property was not properly given in the auction notice. It was also not mentioned as to what exists on the property. Further notices were not published in leading newspapers having wide circulation in the locality. He argues that the notices were published in the Business Standard English and Hindi Edition. Both these newspapers have no wide circulation in the locality. He further argues that the Respondent also did not value the property properly. As per the valuer of the Respondent, the fair market value was Rs.28,96,200/-. However, the Respondent valued the property for Rs.21 lacs. He argues that on these grounds, the auction is liable to be set-aside .

¶15

¶16

SA/423/2024

¶17

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶18

Per contra , Mr. Gupta, counsel for the FI argues that the Respondent has complied with all the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Applicant was directed by the Hon’ble High Court to pay Rs.10 lacs. However, he did not deposit the same within time. He argues that there is no merit in the SA and the same be dismissed.

¶19

I have perused CERSAI registration. In the same, the total area of the property has not been mentioned. Be that as it may, even in the auction notice, the dimensions of the property have not been mentioned. In the sale-deed, it is mentioned that the property measures 30/30 feet and the total area is stated to be 100 sq. feet. Be that as it may, the Respondent also did not publish the notices in the newspapers having wide circulation in the locality. On these grounds, I am of the considered view that this auction cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is hereby set-aside . Respondent would refund the money of the Auction Purchaser with interest at the rate of 6 per cent within 15 days. However, the Respondent would retain the possession. In view of the above observations, the SA stands disposed of.

¶20

It is made clear that this order would not debar the Respondent from putting the property for auction again.

¶21

A copy of this Final Order be furnished to all the parties free of cost.

¶22

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (A.S. Narang) Dated: 17.09.2025 Presiding Officer ANJ DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional Charge)

¶23

Ms Gaurav Products through Its Proprietor Purushotam Dass on of Shri Kasturi Lal v. the Authorized Officer Bajaj Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Gaurav Products through Its Proprietor Purushotam Dass on of Shri Kasturi Lal v. the Authorized Officer Bajaj Finance 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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Shri Vicky singh

Canara Bank versus M/S Radha Krishan Chole Bhature

State Bank of India versus Arun Nagpal

Murari Lal versus Punjab Housing Finance Limited

Ms Star Collection versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Swapnil Solanki versus Canara Bank