Dismissed

Jagdamba Embroidery v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT10 Dec 2025SA/723/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed to quash possession notices under SARFAESI Act. The Court found notices properly served, NPA declaration valid, and the applicant failed to approach the bank for settlement or raise objections, lacking a clean hand.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; applicant denied relief to quash possession notice.

Jagdamba Embroidery versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

S.A. No. 723 of 2024

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW

¶4

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶5

Securitization Application No.723 of 2024

¶6

Dated 10.12.2025

¶7

Jagdamba Embroidery, situated at B- 028, Sector-65 Noida, Gautambuddh Nagar District Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. – 201301

¶8

Amit Kumar Gupta S/o Ram Bhajan Gupta, resident of House No.Rc-85, Sangam Park, Maharshi Garden Block-B F G, Khora Khora, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201001.

¶9

Smt. Shankuntala W/o Amit Kumar Gupta, Resident of House No. Rc-85, Sangam Park, Maharshi Garden Block-B F G, Khora Khora, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201001.

¶10

––-- Applicants

¶11

Verusus

¶12

\ R+

¶13

A U. Small Finance Bank Ltd;, Au Centre, 3rd Floor, Sunny Trade Centre, New Atish Market, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302019

¶14

–-–-- Respondent.

¶15

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant: Shri Pal Singh, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-F. I: Shri Shyam Kumar Ray, Advocate.

¶16

'’'

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The present Securitization Application has been filed by the Applicants under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and

S. No.723 of 2024

.../

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act).

¶23

This Securitization Application has been brought by the applicant for a relief to quash the notice dated 07.06.2023 under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 issued for taking possession without following the statutory compliances and further to restrain the respondent bank from taking possession of the secured assets. The Securitization Application has been pressed mainly on grounds. (a) That possession notice dated 07.06.2023 (b) Demand Notice dated 06.04.2023 was not served upon the applicant and right of representation was extinguished by respondent-F.I. (c) it is further submitted that the account has been wrongly declared NPA.

¶24

The respondent-F.I. has submitted a written objection stating therein that all the compliances have been made by the respondent-F.I. It is submitted that the applicant had availed a loan of Rs.25.00 lacs payable in 120 EMIs; but the applicant could not maintain the financial discipline and the loan was declared as NPA on 03.04.2023 as per the R.B.I. guidelines. A demand notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was served upon the applicant and proof of the service by Anexure-3 has been shown to the Tribunal.

¶25

4 A BPNL receipt (bulk posting) has been annexed as Annexure3 and as per the tracking report it has been served upon the applicant on 15.04.2023 and 17.04.2023. It is further submitted that the demand notice dated was properly served upon all the applicants. It is submitted that possession notice dated 06.07.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been properly issued and the compliances of the same has been annexed as Annexure-1 of the counter affidavit and it has been shown to the Tribunal as per the tracking report, it has been

¶26

¶27

S. No.723 of 2024

¶28

served upon all the applicants. The affixation and publication have also been shown to the Tribunal, filed with the counteraffidavit. The possession notice has been published in two leading newspapers.

¶29

5 . It is further submitted that the applicant never raised any objections under Section 13(3 A) and he did not approach the respondent bank for proper settlement of the account any time after initiation of Securitization proceeding as well.

¶30

It is submitted that the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with a clean hand. It is stated that the respondent bank could take physical possession of only 35 square yards out of the total area 70 square yards of the secured assets mortgaged with the respondent bank. As the respondent bank came to know that by committing fraud the applicant partitioned the secured assets in two parts and created third party interest upon the secured assets without informing the respondent

¶31

It is submitted that Punchnama has been filed with the counter affidavit as Annexur-5 and the bank has taken possession of the 35 square yards upon of the secured assets only.

¶32

In view of the discussion, I find that notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) were properly served upon the applicant any specific plea regarding wrong declaration of NPA has not been raised by the applicant. The applicant has not approached this Tribunal with a clean hand. I further find that the applicant has not shown to the Tribunal regarding his settlement proposal with the respondent bank.

¶33

In view of the findings, I find that the SA itself being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

¶34

All the other pending IAs are also disposed of.

¶35

File be consigned to record room.

¶36

¶37

S. No.723 of 2024

¶38

gb;p* [Pravas Kumar Singh] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.

¶39

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court . on this 10th Day ofDece,nb„, 2025. f J

¶40

[Pravas Kumar S+ngl] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.

¶41

(Mugish)

Jagdamba Embroidery v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdamba Embroidery v. Au Small Finance 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

Axis Bank versus Manish Kumar

M s Chandan Health Care and Others versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Harshit Oberoi versus State Bank of India

Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited versus Aman Kansal

Aryavart Bank versus M/S Singh Mini Rice Mill

Axis Bank versus Shailesh Kumar Singh