Dismissed

Smt Saraswati Devi v. Indian Bank

DRT3 Sept 2025SA/709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed under Section 13(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, holding that the application was time-barred. The Court applied the Supreme Court's precedent that a confirmed sale by auction cannot be set aside unless there is fundamental procedural error, concentration, fraud, or collusion.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed and the proceeding is consigned to the record. No stay or other interim relief is granted.

Smt Saraswati Devi versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

S.A. Nd. 709 of 2024

¶2

HE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIB Present:Pray: Securitization D d	0 Jo a 25	NOW L Sing 202
S SaraswatiDevi W/oLa1 lth R/o Village AmeenpurNi P. 'gana, Tehsil and DistrictB: U. 271801	R 'a le L9
2 IPKumar PalS/o LateRamPa R/4 Village Ameenpur Nagraur,Pa TebsilandDistrictBahraich, U.P.27	&ara +g ll80
3. Atish Kumar PalS/oLate RamPa R/9 Village Ameenpur Nagraur,Pa TehsilandDistrict Bahraich, U.P.27 Versus	kara +gan h80	Applicants
Indian Bank(ErstwhileAll 114, Raipur .), Zonal Office, Road, District, Bahraich- 01 at Indian Bank(ErstwhileAll b: ), Branch Salarpur, Galla Di$trict Bahraich, U.P.-271801	I labad a U.F
K4dar Nath S/o Ttirathram. R/o Sa Akhikraura/ uraha A 'aich-271801 B,	+apara ,U	'sbondent
Counsellfor Mr. Mohd Y applicants	4qoob, A	dvocat
Counsel!for respondent-bank: Mr. Vinay		.dvoc
Counsellfor auctionpurchaser: Noneat th	Ftime	a

¶3

I 2
S.A. IN+. 709 of 2024
i

¶4

JUDGMEN

¶5

The present Securitization Applic [ed by the tion and

¶6

applicants under Sec1 17(1) Iconstruction of Financial Asse1 rcern of Security

¶7

Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARF

¶8

This S.A. has :n brU

¶9

liefs prayed It by applicants

¶10

fdr s' dated ing aside the demand notil possessIon

¶11

ce dated 27.12.2018 and orI uncle of the Act

¶12

d&ed 09.08.2024 and further to quash lee dated 10.2019 vide which auction was Londu on 2 ,2019

¶13

acts Admitted It is stated that the son of applicant no. 1 and brother ol 3 av Credit L: It of Rs. 9.00 lad Bank

¶14

:ortgaged into Indian Bank) his lther n Padarath

¶15

become guarantor, the said credit +acih' +.do Laos was leed to Rs

¶16

,de in the year 2019 and subseq+ently

¶17

2}.00 Laos. It stated that said 'e ,as'\wm(ie without ,&„„„t ,y th, I,t, R,m P,d,„&h.. guarantor /do,tg,go, of th, „cu,ed loan, )elrlg proprietor M/s Pal raders Pvt Ltd in } whos loan was tioned committed lcide 4 livi 3hind his Poonam Pal and two daughU >arty), it is

¶18

stated that Poonam Pal is propl ld Iunning fitable business after death of her she is not ng relationship with the #ppl )r case being

¶19

on 28.07.2015, the bank c lified loan NPA and Inst t

¶20

ated recovery proceedings Padarath SA No approached Lal vide its order

¶21

6]5/2015 and the SA was allowed +y dAted 09.04.2018, as some statutot09.04.2018, as some statutotstatutot 'e found to

¶22

dAted 09.04.2018, as some statutot09.04.2018, as some statutotstatutot

¶23

709 of 2024

¶24

not made by the respondent order this

¶25

T+ibunal had directed the respondl pro afresh by .ssuing fresh demand notice accdrd. ith thI F+ovisions of RFAESI Act and Rules

¶26

1. le respondent bank al rnrtr ndings by W addressed to

¶27

s;uing demand notice dated 08.10. Ram Padarath and not add+essed 11 heirs of

¶28

brish Kumar Pal. A fresh dI possesslorl litted that

¶29

ce was issued by the responde+t b: and and possession notice Peri upon the

¶30

licant. The ’adarath 9 and a fresh lication under section 14 of the Fore the Ld which other legal hei were not

¶31

'ayed party. The applican1 cha lenged the ,uritization proceedings after thI ldarath by ,g of SA No. 796/2019 which default on

¶32

02.2022 Is stated that aRet SA No. ;ectlo: 14 of the Act

¶33

;/2019, respondent bank proceed+d undJ obtained order dated 09.08.2 unde >tlo: 4 of the Act.

¶34

It is submitted that order under without re Lord satisfaction of the se] It is adp{icant.

¶35

sai )e secured

¶36

.tted that same property whichhavl

¶37

are agricultural land against which II pro ling cannot tiated

¶38

1. far as sale notice concern statutory

¶39

.pliances were not made by er Ident I. Correct

¶40

uation report was not made and ;ompliance

¶41

,mb„ ,.1, 8(5), 8(6), 8(7) and 91 + (Int„„t) ;eeded for

¶42

rcement Rule,2002, respondl a : C : II for the

¶43

.g the secured assets on e-

¶44

apblicant submitted that sale is li4) S and the

¶45

Q. 709 of 2024

¶46

ssession of the secured assets sHoull applicants

¶47

'estor favour of

¶48

,d counsel for the respondent lmitted lat all the

¶49

statutory compliances have been 4adl .e re ldent bank d it is submitted at the outset th, It havl )t appeared fore this Tribunal with clean II heirs o 'rrower namely Ambrish Kumar lot be+n made party the case, though it is subt 'ing flourishing

¶50

business on the proprietorship Fi 'aders & ors against whom the loan was sanctioJed rgued case at the Olhtset is fit to be d: lssed for of n no. 3 had

¶51

ternate argument has been appl: t the SA 796/2019, which issed default on

¶52

24.02.2022 and instead of pursui order, the ;h s further

¶53

a$plicant no. 3 came with a sybmitted that it would be apr)an objection filed by the respondent bank that >mpliances have been made by the responden1 sta lat demand ce dated 08.10.2018 and possl ;e dat4d 27.12.2018 :e Ambrish

¶54

wbre personally received by Smt. Poon; al and proprietor of M/: Shri Ram

¶55

Padarath being mortgagor /guaran .d that all the notices under SI !) i(4) of the AESI Act, 2002 have been 'ece by the Sh

¶56

Padarath and Punam W/o [bris] P&1,i it was sent

¶57

'ough registered post as well. I (i )tices have affixation

¶58

b+en affixed on the secured assets, been submitted by the respl LeI possession

¶59

ce has been published in two Il :+;P, Id copy of same has been filed. I find that and Ram lat the loan

¶60

.darath were only competent to raIse thI enhanced without the ca 'ath. The

¶61

5 S.A. Nq. 709 of 2024

¶62

applicants were having no locJs ’e se sue objection .ermore; they have not bro&ht evidl to make presumption for the same

¶63

EJ Ir sectio 14 of the It is further stated that in procee( lng

¶64

SARFAESI Act, applicant apI 'el Fore .e Ld D.M. Baharaich on 06.02.2023 and fi thI and raised bbjectio

¶65

'ir objections, meaning thereby >pli< were ly aware of notices issued under secti. 1 and .3[4) ,f th,

¶66

SARFAESI Act but the same was n It b '0 It within lime before Is Tribunal and SA itself is time la] IS submitted .t in this regard writ petition C- I 471 2d was brd lght by the

¶67

aJplicant before the Hon’ble Co lrt [ny re Ii regarding libitation never granted. It is po ntel el that has been bJp„,ght by th, ,ppli„„t b,f„, IIS n i laI oh :7.09.2024. .us, the SA itself is time barred

¶68

b: Lt vide al lexure CA It lis further stated by the responden 'rty was registered in th€ C] [ and th respondent In proper valuation, 'hi1 hE been s lbsequently f counter affidavit

¶69

A$ far as sale is concerned, it is su In11 ted lat saIl otice dated 15.10.2019 was served upon the ap] 'lici n 19, which was personally received by Smt. 100 n K.I*l:ji2019 and other notices were sent, did not r I t11 LeI jack, lerefore, it is ierv1 3 d IS Ltl that sale

¶70

p+sumed that notices have been n&ice were affixed on the securel ass 3 Rtd ph' a nI)h were oHtained and duly published in two lea( lews w, in proof thbreof, annexures RA-2 has been jed IPO Int bank. It is stated that entire bid amount has bee] le auctIon d Py

¶71

pdrchaser within time and sale ce: :inc: i isued vide of

¶72

.exures RA-3. As far as plea ,d co&nbel for the I1-0 W le secured

¶73

apblicant being that agricultural as;ets, Ld counsel for the respond )nt rl upon the

¶74

¶75

S.A. No. 709 of 2024

¶76

ent of ITC Pvt Ltd. Vs. Bl oa [otels ih which it is held that once the property is mI ;gagel bo+ower, then borrower may not plead and Je a sh' :r un 4e,ti,„ 31 (i) the Act that property is an a )ne another 1.Lg counsel for the applicant has pI:pI: 'und that as well. It is that as well. It is subt lg the SA 796/2019, a statement was maIa statement was maIstatement was maIwas maImaI >ounsel for bank that no bid is received, w]that no bid is received, w]no bid is received, w]is received, w]received, w]w] has Id to be

¶77

1 1.Lg counsel for the applicant has pI:pI: 'und that as well. It is that as well. It is subt 796/2019, a statement was maIa statement was maIstatement was maIwas maImaI

¶78

bank that no bid is received, w]that no bid is received, w]no bid is received, w]is received, w]received, w]w]

¶79

mbe on the date, the learned c .tted that any such instrul

¶80

cdunsel. I find that for the

¶81

)n lokthe learned ; e not been -ossession lbrish pkI and Ram he s; lotrce was the statutory sale. One +o M/S Pal laged dy wife of case. It is )rish pal is ;, thus the lenge the judgment !LIR LLP

¶82

.sed to the applicants

¶83

1 In order to recapitulate, the dqm: .ce was duly served upon the the borrower and the gu4rantot

¶84

,onally received by the wife of .pliances have been made bet

¶85

m&re facet of the case being the loa ders proprietorshi firm, brish Pal, who has not been arrayed a: .tted case of the applicant tha1 lg a fl01 ishing business upa

¶86

licant was not Nln loo

¶87

se+uritization proceeding

¶88

1 I have considered the leading j1 ,sed by the Hon’ble The Apex Mr. Surnati Prasad Bafna & ors.

¶89

:ontempt

¶90

Case

¶91

The Hon’ble The Apex Ca h led a jq )stion and laid down ratio, as to the circums1 .ces In a sale }f property b+ auction or other means under bAI HsI Al lay be set

¶92

b+ auction or other means under bAI

¶93

S.A 709 of 2024

¶94

ide after its confirmation. Thei Lot !xamined a T the ix Court. It series of judgments pronounced been said that purpose of an o len )t the most .umerative price and it is a duty }f tI openness 0 le auction so that intend bi free ipate and offer higher value, It is }et he sale has deen confirmed, it cannot be s ) t ldamental Jrocedural error occurred or sale c :rtl be+n obtained by srepresentation or fraud. After dis( 'eral other }unI )ara 218 of jbdgment, th,ir Lo,d,hip h„ p,OP, e judgment \ro U IS unaeY: P),, N,. 218 ,f th, j„dg„„nt is ,q

¶95

" Any sale by auction OL .ubU, 'ocur ement methods once already conf 'rm' bOYIC 0 10 not to be set aside or in, F/e r e /&Ar/Jexcept on grounds that go to the cor\ 1cr3 S 1 is, such as either b4 lent 'uate II:/fIt prICIng y ]!I rere '.tart deviation 'm a rule which does not ',ndameyrtal procedural error does not bah tdation of authority for such procee, kg. courts in 1 tt particular should be mindft t==jthe tatnwtg any ground for challenging an all I whic '.ither could have been taken earlier befo 'e fJ 1,ducted arId confIrmed or where no subs harza \eevl caused L==j on account of such irregular Fa. 14 In view of above discussil td t 1 ly of the ground that gbes to the ,o„e of such Focel iS teh ither being cd//z/sive, fraudulent or by !qucll vlcwlg or UL rbidding has not been eithet pI laU or '&ed by the

¶96

S.A. tNd. 709 of 2024

¶97

aPplicant. I have iously udice has been caused .::==: it I fi] It applicant well aware of the Securitiza1 ling: aed by the ;pondent bank and for the pos: ion sec 1 I ;sets the ipondent bank has taken Ir of the RFAESI Act, 2002 and the si Eas conducted the respondent bank as all the s1 have been sHown to the Tribunal

¶98

view of above discussions, I do :void of an Abcordingly, S.A. is dismissed bei .ccordingly, all the pending IAs le be consigned to the record ro

¶99

)ril in the SA

¶100

tsJoJed of

¶101

J&d lent signed, sealed, dated andlpro] on this Q3'd Day of September, 2025 .

¶102

mar Singh] .g Officer Tribunal Lucknow In open court

¶103

lmar Singh] ling Officer Tribunal, Lucknow.