Dismissed

Pramod Kumar v. Noida Commercial Co-Oprative Bank Ltd.

DRT17 Nov 2025SA/876/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by borrowers and guarantors against Noida Commercial Bank. The court found that statutory compliances regarding demand and possession notices were met, noting service via newspaper publication, speed post, and registered post, thus rejecting the claim of inadequate service.

What did the court decide?

None; Securitization Application dismissed.

Pramod Kumar versus Noida Commercial Co-Oprative Bank Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

-4} ,P

S.A. No.876 of 2022

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Securitization Application No.876 of 2022

¶7

Dated: 17.11.2025

¶8

Pramod Kumar And Ors.

¶9

, Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Noida Commercial Bank Co-Operative Bank . . . . Respondents

¶12

Ld. Counsel for the applicant: Mr. Nikhil Srivastava, Advocate.

¶13

Ld. Counsel for the bank : Mr. Suneet K. Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The present Securitization Application has been filed by the applicant under section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act) for restraining the respondent-bank from creating any third party interest over the property and further to quash notices under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶16

Brief facts of the case: Applicant no.1 is borrower and the applicant nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 are guarantors of the credit facility availed by the applicants. It is stated that account was running regular, but, due to financial difficulty and personal dispute among the applicants, account was declared as NPA. Subsequently, he came to know that possession notice has been published in “Financial Express” English newspaper. It is submitted that before publication of possession notice, demand notice was not served upon the applicant. In the utter violation of the direction given in M/s. Mardia Chemical Ltd. Vs. tJnion of India and Others.

¶17

A written objection has been filed on behalf of the respondent-bank.

<’
<br>

S.A.No.876 of 2022

It is submitted that statutory compliances have been made by the respondent-bank. It is submitted that that when the applicants failed in payment of EMI, account was declared NPA on 30.3.202 1, after which, demand notice dated 11.7.2022 was issued for payment of Rs.20,23,824 as on 31.5.2022. It was sent through speed post and in addition, published in two leading newspapers namely “Jansatta” and “Financial Express” on 09.8.2022. Annexure No.1 has been shown to the Tribunal regarding postal receipt and publication for service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which has been duly affixed on the secured assets also.

¶22

It is further submitted that possession notice dated 23.10.2022 was sent through registered post, published in two leading newspaper and due affixation was made at the secured assets. In the alternate, it is submitted that the applicant has himself admitted of knowledge of the possession notice through publication.

¶23

In view of above discussion, I find that notices under Section 13(2) & 13(4) were duly served upon the applicants and any other ground was not raised even at the time of argument or in the SA.

¶24