Dismissed

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. Union Bank of India

DRT28 Nov 2025SA/956/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT Lucknow dismissed an application seeking to set aside notices under Section 13(4) and the entire securitization proceeding of the Union Bank of India. The court held that the bank had complied with statutory requirements regarding notice service and valuation. Relying on precedent that confirmed sales cannot be set aside for mere procedural irregularities absent fraud or inadequate pricing,

What did the court decide?

Application to set aside notices and securitization proceedings dismissed.

Jitendra Kumar Singh versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶3

Date oforder or lroceedin!	Orderwithsignatureofcourt	Officeaction taken withdate
S.A.No.956/2023 28.11.2025	Judgment is signed and pronounced on separate sheets. Separatelyattachedin04sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’swebsite.
	[ (PravasKu„TarSingh) Presiding Officer

¶4

¶5

S.A. No.956 of 2023

¶6

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW

¶7

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶8

Securitization Application No.956 of 2023 Dated: 28.11.2025

¶9

Jitendra Kumar Singh & Ors. , Applicant

Versus

Union Bank of India

Respondents

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

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

t- q*

¶16

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 relief to set aside notices under Section 13(4) along with sale notice and further to set aside entire securitizatioh proceeding initiated by the respondent-bank. Admittedly, sale certificate has been issued and possession of the secured assets has been handed over to the auction purchaser.

¶17

This SA has been brought on ground that proper service of notices under Section 13(2) & 13(4) and sale notice was not served upon the applicant.

¶18

A detail counter affidavit has been filed by the respondentbank stating therein that all the statutory compliances have been made by the respondent-bank.

¶19

RE-13(2): - it is submitted that without declaration of account as NPA, the respondent-bank proceeded for

¶20

¶21

S.A.No.956 of 2023

¶22

securitization proceeding and notice under Section 13(2) was not served upon the applicants. It is replied that when the loan account was irregular, it was declared NPA on 01.5.2022 and the respondent-bank issued demand notice on 08.8.2022 to the applicant at the correct address and the applicant did not press to exercise its option of representation. In proof of service of demand notice, Annexure R-7 has been brought by the respondent-bank and shown to the Tribunal. It is submitted that demand notice was sent to the address provided by the applicant and which has been stated in the SA itself. Annexure R-5 is demand notice which has been dispatched to the applicant, postal receipt has been filed and it was duly published in two newspapers, thus, it is proved that demand notice was served upon the applicant.

¶23

t \ ../

¶24

RE-Possession Notice under 13(4):- Exhibit R-6 has been brought by the respondent-bank for showing service of possession notice. In proof thereof, affixation at the conspicuous part of the secured assets, post receipt, publication in two newspapers have been shown to the Tribunal. Thus, the service of demand notice is confirmed.

¶25

RE-Valuation Report: - it is submitted by the applicant that property has been sold under value. In rebuttal, it is submitted that proper valuation report was taken by the recognized valuer of the bank before putting the property on e-auction. Valuation report has been filed as Annexure R-9. It is argued that applicant has not filed any contrary to disbelieve the valuation report.

¶26

RE-Sale: it is submitted that sale notice dated 19.9.2023 has been sent to all the applicants. It was duly published in two leading newspaper and in lieu of sale notice dated 24.9.2023, sale was scheduled on 27.10.2023 and the

¶27

¶28

S.A.No.956 of 2023

¶29

mortgage property has been sold out to the successful auction purchaser. Copy of sale notice dated 19.9.2023 has been annexed as Annexure R-10, photographer of affixation of sale notice and publication in two leading newspaper is annexed as Annexure No. R-11 & R-12 affixation has been annexed. The respondent-bank has also annexed proof of entering.into house, postal receipt for submitting that proper service of sale notice was made. Any other ground was not raised by the applicant.

¶30

The Hon’ble Apex Court decided a ratio in Bafna Contempt Case

¶31

[

¶32

¶33

“The Hon’ble Apex Court has framed a question and laid down ratio, as to the circumstances, when a sale of property by auction or other means under SARFAESI Act may be set aside after its confirmation. Their Lordships have examined a series of judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has been said that purpose of an open auction is to get the most enumerative pric6 and it is a duty of the Court to keep openness of the auction so that intending bidder would be free to participate and offer higher value. It is said that once the sale has been confirmed, it cannot be set aside unless fundamental procedural error occurred or sale certificate has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. After discussions of several other judgments their Lordship has propounded the ratio in para 218 of the judgment.”

¶34

“ Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already confirmed or concluded ought not to be setaside or interfered with lightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule which does not have any fundamental procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such proceeding. In such cases, courts in particular should be mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confirmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity .”

¶35

¶36

S.A.No.956 of 2023

¶37

In view of above discussion, if find that any such ground such as “that may go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding is neither pleaded nor proved. I do not find any merit in the SA, accordingly, SA is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶38

10.All the pending IAs are disposed of.

¶39

Let the file be consigned to record room.

¶40

(Dictated)

¶41

(Pravas Kurhar STngh) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow

¶42

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 28th Day of November, 2025.

¶43

¶44

(Pravas Kumai-Singh) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow

¶45

(Veeresh)

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujeet Kumar Singh versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Farjana versus Finova Capital Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Chander Pal Singh

Yas Electricals and Applicances through Its Proprietor Mohd Sayeed versus Sbfc Finance Private Limited

Mahesh Baboo Gautam versus Hdfc Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Meera Retails Pvt. Ltd.