Dismissed

Ms Namrata Industries v. Karnataka Bank Limited

DRT18 Dec 2025SA/612/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur dismissed an application seeking to quash securitization proceedings. The court held claims regarding auction sale price and procedural objections were time-barred and lacked merit, noting the property sold above the applicant's claimed value.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of securitization proceedings dismissed; all pending IAs disposed of.

Ms Namrata Industries versus Karnataka Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 612/2022

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIMAL GUPTA

¶3

SA No.- 612/2022

¶4

M/S Namrata Industries, B-270, Janta Colony, Jaipur

¶5

Jaigovind Dhamani R/o B-270, Janta Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶6

Mrs. Nivedita Dhamani, R/o B-270, Janta Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶7

………Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Karnataka Bank Ltd having office at- 4, MI Road, Opp. Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur.

¶10

Authoised Officer, Karnataka Bank Ltd, having officer at 8B, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi.

¶11

M/s GLHP Mettalica Industies having office at B-234, Vigyan Nagar, Gate No. 2, Near 7 No. Bus Stand, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017

¶12

M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, Having its Registered office at the Rubu, 10^th floor, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar west, Dadar, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400028

¶13

..….. Respondent

¶14

signed and uploaded on 22.12.2025 cm

¶15

SA No. 612/2022

¶16

Present:

¶17

Shri Akarsh Mathur, Counsel for the Applicant

¶18

Shri Vikram Dagur, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶19

Shri Kirti Kapoor, Counsel for the Auction Purchaser

¶20

(Final Order)

¶21

(18.12.2025)

¶22

This securitization application has been filed by Namrata Industries through its proprietor Shri Jaigovind Dhamani along with his wife Smt. Nivedita Jaigovind Dhamani. Their relief prayed for includes quashing of proceedings taken under securitization being illegal and arbitral, unreasonable and unjustified. Nothing more or nothing less has been prayed for.

¶23

The Notice under Section 13(2) were duly served and no objections under 13(3A) were taken according to the bank. There is an objection of declaration of account as NPA. Counsel for the bank submits that the account was running into stress and has been restructured.

¶24

As per the documents placed, the market value of mortgaged property was 296.70 Lac and post sale value was Rs. 238.00 Lac. CERSAI charge was registered and ID No. 200014886540. There is no dispute regarding sanction of the loan, disbursement of the laon and default being committed, rather in Para 5.4, there is an averment that the applicants are ready and willing to pay the outstanding dues of the Respondent FI. Though, it is also pleaded that the there was a request for restructuring and it was denied which is countered by the counsel for

¶25

signed and uploaded on 22.12.2025 cm

¶26

SA No. 612/2022

¶27

the bank stating that the account was already restructured.

¶28

There are two main objections now today:- one is the debt has been assigned ARCIL and there is no one to represent ARCIL. Counsel Shri Vikram Dagur, who appeared submits that he has instructions that if ARCIL does not engage a new counsel or any counsel does not appear, then he has to continue to represent them. Submission made at BAR is taken at its face value.

¶29

Counsel is insisting on his application filed on 17.04.2023 on the basis of order dated 11.04.2023. However, an application filed bearing no. 46/2023 dated 09.01.2023 by Mr. Mahendra Agarwal, advocate is on record seeking the auction purchaser to be made a party and not to create any third party interest. That application was dated 28.09.2022 and by cutting the date, it was made as 05.01.2023.

¶30

The Court can interfere only then there are reasonable grounds and in interest of justice. The arguments taken by counsel for the applicant is that vide order dated 11.04.2023, he was given liberty to challenge the auction and therefore it is deemed to have been within limitation.

¶31

On the other hand, counsel for the bank and acution purchaser in one single tone disputes the same. My attention is also drawn on order dated 07.12.2022, wherein all the factums of the same, i.e. auctin and issuance of sale certificate are mentioned.

¶32

There is no specific order about filing of the application or taking it on record or condonation of delay. It is simply an

¶33

signed and uploaded on 22.12.2025 cm

¶34

SA No. 612/2022

¶35

averment made by the counsel that he wish to place an application against sale certificate dated 22.11.2022.

¶36

Be that it may be, there is one letter dated 25.05.2022 issued by Namrata Industries through proprietor Shri Jaigovind Dhamani. There is an objection by the Counsel for the applicant that this letter seems to have been issued by the applicant no. 2 as he do not correspond with the bank in Hindi. He also submits that the letter head of the company might have misused, on placing the signature on the said letter and all the documents filed by the counsel tallys.

¶37

The Tribunal is of the opinions that order dated 11.04.2023 are being given a color that my Ld. Predecessor had allowed filing of the application, therefore condoned the delay. There is no direction in such order, it is only an averment recorded of the counsel. Any challenge to the auction is highly time barred. Therefore, taking the shelter under order dated 11.04.2023 does not come to rescue of the applicant. They were well aware of the order dated 07.12.2022 which was passed in the presence of counsel itself.

¶38

There is an objection also that this letter dated 25.05.2022 cannot be taken on record. However, the Tribunal itself has permitted the documents to be placed on record. In that letter applicant has stated that the market value of the property is Rs. 1,70,00,000/- The bank has already sold the property for Rs. 2,02,50,000/which is Rs. 32.50 Lac in excess. This amount has gone to the roots of applicant’s liability itself.

¶39

signed and uploaded on 22.12.2025 cm

¶40

SA No. 612/2022

¶41

Counsel for the applicant argues that there are four dates of NPA declared by the bank, whereas it should have been one single date. There are four accounts and admittedly there are different dates of NPA, 30.12.2020 in two accounts, 31.03.2021 in one account, 01.04.2021 in one more account and definitely there should have been one single date, but since account was re-structured, counsel submits that the date on which originally the account became NPA have been reflected for each account separately.

¶42

This Tribunal thinks in conformity with the RBI guidelines where restricted account continue to be in NPA status for at least one year and said period can be more dependent on each account.

¶43

As stated above, there is no dispute regarding availment of loan and default, subsequently, the letter dated 25.05.2022 also confirms the same where account restructuring has been sought.

¶44

The Tribunal could have sympathises with the applicant, the said property being sold less than an amount of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- but the sale value of the property is Rs. 2,02,50,000/-

¶45

Counsel for the applicant submits that respondents have failed to paste the auction notice on the mentioned properties and make newspaper publications as per the requirement of the act. He further submits that there is no date mentioned in the possession notice, and Redemption notice has not been issued, so that applicant rights may get frustrated.

¶46

signed and uploaded on 22.12.2025 cm

¶47

SA No. 612/2022

¶48

All the objections taken above stands dismissed, as these are not within limitation to challenge.

¶49

In view of the facts stated above, this SA deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, SA stands disposed of as dismissed, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.

¶50

File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶51

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶52

signed and uploaded on 22.12.2025 cm

Ms Namrata Industries v. Karnataka Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Namrata Industries v. Karnataka 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

Hdfc Bank versus Amar Singh Rathore

State Bank of India versus Dheeraj Khanna

Laxmi Sharma versus Sammaan Capital Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Mohammad Akbar

Punjab National Bank versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Chandro