Dismissed

Shri Jasbir Singh Bajwa v. Punjab and Sind Bank

DRT20 Jan 2025SA/511/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant filed a Securitization Application challenging the Bank's SARFAESI action for non-service of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4). The Court held that since the Applicant had previously submitted an Offer to Set-off (OTS) which failed, they were debarred from raising the non-service plea. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed.

Shri Jasbir Singh Bajwa versus Punjab and Sind Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA/511/2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/511/2024

¶4

SHRI JASBIR SINGH BAJWA Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

¶5

20.01.2025

¶6

ITEM No.18

¶7

Argued by: Mr. G.S. Anand Advocate for the Applicants (SA) Mr. A.B.S. Sidhu Advocate for the Respondent Bank (through VC)

¶8

Jasbir Singh Bajwa and others (Applicants) have filed this Securitization Application under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against Punjab and Sind Bank (Respondent Bank).

¶9

Applicant No.1 is the son of Applicant No.3 and father of Applicant No.2. Admittedly, vide sanction letter dated 20.05.2008, Applicant Nos.1 and 3 were sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.15 lacs. Further vide sanction letter dated 02.04.2009, Applicant No.2 was sanctioned an Educational Loan of Rs.4 lacs. The said loans were secured by the mortgage of the land situated at Village Kalanpur Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. Applicants failed to make the payment and on 30.09.2016, the Respondent declared the accounts of the Applicants NPA. On 15.06.2017, the Respondent Bank issued the notices under Section 13(2) of the Act demanding a sum of Rs.35,03,074/-. The case of the Applicants is that they were never served with the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. On 07.10.2022, Applicant No.1 had submitted an OTS of Rs.16,20,000/-. However, Applicants could not make the payment due to unfortunate circumstances. However, Applicants have deposited Rs.14 vide

¶10

¶11

SA/511/2024

¶12

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶13

Manager’s Cheque dated 20.08.2024. It is alleged that on 19.08.2024, Applicants visited his village and came to know that the Respondent intends to take the possession on 21.08.2024. Applicants state that the Respondent intends to take the possession without serving them the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. The security interest is not registered with CERSAI. Accordingly, the action of the Bank is bad in law.

¶14

Respondent Bank in its reply has alleged that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act were duly served on the Applicants. Be that as it may vide sanction letter dated 21.05.2022, the Bank had sanctioned an OTS of Rs.18,11,000/-. However, Applicants failed to comply with the same. The security interest is duly registered with the CERSAI. The SA is time-barred. Accordingly, they stated that the same be dismissed.

¶15

Mr. Anand, counsel for the Applicants has argued that the Bank has not produced on the record any proof of the fact that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act were duly served upon the Applicants. For want of service of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, the SARFAESI action is bad in law. Accordingly, the same be set-aside.

¶16

Per contra , Mr. Sidhu, counsel for the Bank has submitted that the Applicants themselves had submitted an OTS which they themselves failed to comply. He has submitted that once the Applicants have submitted the OTS, they are debarred from challenging the SARFAESI action.

¶17

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶18

¶19

SA/511/2024

¶20

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶21

It is admitted on the record that the Applicants had submitted an OTS which they themselves failed to comply. Applicants cannot be allowed to take a somersault and take the plea that they were never served with the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. There is no merit in the SA and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶22

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

¶23

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (A.S. Narang) Dated: 20.01.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional Charge)

¶24

ANJ

¶25

Shri Jasbir Singh Bajwa v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Jasbir Singh Bajwa v. Punjab and Sind 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

Uco Bank versus M/S P.R.Creation Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Hitani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Shri Manish Dhanda

Renjith T Mathew versus State Bank of India

Saju Muhammed Alias Saju Ismail versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Adalat Khan versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited