Dismissed

Ms Shree Ji Enterprises v. Bank of Baroda

DRT18 Sept 2025SA/97/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application to set aside a sale notice and possession notice issued by the Bank of Baroda. The court held that the recovery proceedings were conducted in compliance with the SARFAESI Act and no fundamental procedural error or fraud invalidated the sale.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed on merit; no relief was granted to set aside the sale or notices.

Ms Shree Ji Enterprises versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY Tl LUCKNOW

¶3

Dateoforderor lroceedinJ			lee action Inwith date
SA Nm7/2025 18.09.2025	The Judgment is digned pronouncedonseparatesheetq.Sepk attachedin07sheets. I I OrderbeuploadedonthbTrial website. ' (Dictgjed) (Pravas PresidingOffio (Manoj)	and ltely laI’s

¶4

S.A. Nd.97of2025 DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBI AT LUEkNOW IN1 Present: Pravas Kumhr Sin If2025 Presiding Ofncbr Securitization Application No.9’ Dated18.09.20b5
79, 'sShreeJiEnterprises, HougeNl ,vjyoti Colony, District Hapur, d.p.24{#b01, oughits proprietor–Mrs.ShalinqJind Ars. Shalini Jindal W/o Mr. Didesh 2 lar Ji}dal R/oHouseNo. 79,Navjyk)tiCdbny, trictHapur, U.P.245101 Dinesh Kumar JindalS/o lesh r Cband Gupta R/o House No.7] Ni ’otr J: ony, DistrictHapur,U.P.24510 MaheshChand GuptaS/o Idan SbaroopR/oHouseNo.79,Navj: '#IB„y, district Hapur,u.p.245101 versus ,thorizedOfficer,BankofBar4da,b 'anch, Green India Palace,N4w Hour lowk,Khoda, District Ghaziabad sI Kapil S/o Jugendra Chaucbary rO N+brad Colony, S}lanker Vihar haziabad 'ocate la, Ad,b ondent Counse Counse Counsl Mr. Vinay Sha&ker, forapplicants forRrespondent Bank : Mr. Kri for respondent no. 2: inpe JUDGMEN'

S.A. Nd.97of2025
DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBI
AT LUEkNOW
IN1
Present: Pravas Kumhr Sin
If2025
Presiding Ofncbr
Securitization Application No.9’
Dated18.09.20b5

79,
'sShreeJiEnterprises, HougeNl
,vjyoti Colony, District Hapur, d.p.24{#b01,
oughits proprietor–Mrs.ShalinqJind
Ars. Shalini Jindal W/o Mr. Didesh
2
lar
Ji}dal R/oHouseNo. 79,Navjyk)tiCdbny,
trictHapur, U.P.245101
Dinesh Kumar JindalS/o
lesh
r
Cband Gupta R/o House No.7]
Ni
’otr
J:
ony, DistrictHapur,U.P.24510
MaheshChand GuptaS/o
Idan
SbaroopR/oHouseNo.79,Navj:
'#IB„y,
district Hapur,u.p.245101
versus
,thorizedOfficer,BankofBar4da,b
'anch, Green India Palace,N4w
Hour
lowk,Khoda, District Ghaziabad
sI
Kapil S/o Jugendra Chaucbary
rO
N+brad
Colony,
S}lanker
Vihar
haziabad
'ocate
la, Ad,b
ondent
Counse
Counse
Counsl
Mr. Vinay Sha&ker,
forapplicants
forRrespondent Bank : Mr.
Kri
for respondent no. 2: inpe
JUDGMEN'

¶5

S.A. Noi 97 of 2025

¶6

present Securitization Applica+ion been Id by the Sec1 lion and

¶7

ap§hcants under Sectio] 17(1) onstruction of Financial Assets ld E] lrcemedt bf Sec 'rest Act, 2002 (in short SARFA]

¶8

s s. A. ha, b„„ b„„,ght by th, 4pli„ for senotice dated 09.01.b025 ;ale lodce dated

¶9

po+session 02l01.2025/16.01.2025 and to dirdct thI )spon4e+t bank to

¶10

co+sider and decide the represent4tion the apblicant dated 07.2024 & 30.08.2024 and not prol furthe1 Ldmittedly

¶11

applicant n,. 1 h,d b„„ght ,„,]h„ S. 76/20{3 1 which was II as

¶12

osed of on 13.08.2024 by this Trib1 )spondent had withdrawn the demand hoticl lsued anker section

¶13

1. possession notice issued lder .3{4) of th, RFAESI Act, 2002 and Shalini

¶14

T 4e applicant no. is a proprieto[ship .daI applicant no. 2 is the propt ;or 0 le Firm is Shree J

¶15

E+terprises

¶16

for d 1 ban and she

¶17

.e applicant approached the respo&dent offered Cash Credit Limit of Lacs submitted

¶18

thbt applicant wa, p,yi„g th, 1,,. [,g„1, but dIe to spike of lned ther case

¶19

C+vid financial discipline could not lbe mab g that SA No. 76/2023 had cj lenged the and notice, possession noticl and e no and this .2024

¶20

T+ibunal passed an interim order dajed 101 Ftraining the b+k f„m „lli„g th, p„p„ty quest on t -ound that ssession notice was issued vio&tiol Rule 8. which was ,ed by the applicant on 19.12.}022 same published

¶21

.ch earlier on 07.12.2022. It is sjated dated 08.2024 Id counsel for the resbonde= bank 4ubmitted that

¶22

bbth the notices under section 3(2) 13(+)1 have been .thdrawn, Accordingly, the SA was di Id o

¶23

97 of 2025

¶24

OnI M. A. No. 159/2024 was filed f( modif] of the lch wi listed on

¶25

saip order by the respondent Hank 13l12.2024 and by the said order M.4. was

¶26

Thb Tribunal observed that withdr hat o+ lotrce ler section 13{2) makes no difference. Since s4 No. 1 i/2023 lot been re;ived. It is stated that after disbosal SA ’2023, the applicant approached the responded rough Ie.^{lail dated} 29I07.2024, 30.08.2024 and offered to se the a4c+unt as per

¶27

tedns of OTS proposal. IS statl witho' lg any lee datl 19.0 1 .2025

¶28

de+ision on OTS proposal, a posses#ion served upon the applicant. The said Ice ha: )en said to

¶29

ssued on the basis of earlier dedand nblice datdd 08.08.2022 Fer section 13(2) of the Act,

¶30

K is specifically stated that by dint oF earl leman( rjotice under lotice lnber section

¶31

se+tion 13(2) ,f th, Act, the p„Je„i„ leantrn

¶32

were served. It i, ,t,t,d th,tI in thi e I respondent ssued sale notice dated :025 lublished on

¶33

o4.01.2025 fixing the date of e- on on ,02.20 ,51 and further saje notice dated 16.01.2025 SSU IIng the date of ;tion on 20.02.2025 without withdrawat first Ile notice.

¶34

A detailed counter affidavit has deen a le ! respondent

¶35

9 )d the lbunal with It is stated that applicant has not 4pproa4 ltor Dines

¶36

clban hands. It is pointed out mar Jindal and Mahesh Chad whol lad created 'rtgage were not arrayed as pi It is ted that the

¶37

1 ;tant SA as well, any authority hi not )en giv4n ho applicant 2 on behalf of applicant no. 31 & IA is being ,ued by the applicant no. the ktor and

¶38

'rtgagor ave grievance 1 aga the Sbcuritization

¶39

'oceedings, Is submitted thad Trib thaI had ladvertently

¶40

r4corded that notice dated 08.08.£022 .er sec 13(2) has so been withdrawn for which MA was Id. I] leI order of the E)][:

¶41

S.A. NoI 97 of 2025

¶42

MA it was observed that vide otder d. )d 10.0 124 notice

¶43

un+er section 13(2) w,s „ph,Id by s T] lal, so 'e was no occasion ithdraw the notice bnder )ction In the >mand tice under

¶44

rnate it is submitted that purpdse of tmortgagor

¶45

3(2) i, t, ,pp,i„ th, b,d,w„

¶46

the secu] ization proceedinl has lated and

¶47

ttedly the applicant no. 2 had led re !sentat before the Id out that

¶48

ondent bank, which has been r+ected Lt IS pO: cant had submitted 9.10.2022 repre#ental

¶49

requesting the respondent bank not +o prol Le recovery pr+ceeding, which was duly replied by thI }nd&nl bank vide teder dated 31.10.2022. It is submit&d thaI a rloney was deposited by the applicant, respbnden1^{)ank ha:} lsued fresh Lance le demand

¶50

lsession notice dated 09.01.2025 1 in pu ce dated 08.08.2022, which has bee1 ;erved and >roperl

¶51

tted lution, the the applicant. How+ver, way

¶52

dent bank has annexed thel pos1 recelp lelivery o

¶53

lowledgment, afnxation and I new: lper p+b}ication as

¶54

.exure no. 5 of the objection far as OTS proposal sent throu I lette lated 2 .07.2025 and 07.2024 Is submitted that It pay: It was not ;gested th, OTS ,„d ,ppli„„I w„ lforme. lat it is not

¶55

tebable and directed to submit a fre: Ll w r to make pro

¶56

u$front payment. ave considered the rival submissbns o le parti4s Id perused record

¶57

wo moot questIons were ralsel by t appl: It regarding .ability the securrtr proceel firstly

¶58

lpondent bank has issued Lesslon }tice dated 'C)4.01.2025 without lg n4sh de Id n01 as earlier

¶59

dbmand notice dated 08.08.2022 hI said to b& withdrawn thout issuance of new del4and ce, r Indent bank

¶60

cbuld not have issued notice undl sect 13(4) lo+ the Act. In

¶61

¶62

S.A. NoI 97 of 2025

¶63

nuance it has been said that sale noticl lated I ,2025 been issued lieu of the withdrAwn dI land no

¶64

Se+ondly- the sale is also tainted law, since without dra' notrce anothf

¶65

lg sale notice dated 02.41.202 hI

¶66

dated 16.01.2025 was issued

¶67

far as first issue is concerned the ;urnstances order passed in MA that MA h4s beet )romptl IIed by the ’6/202 is conduct

¶68

'ndent bank, after disposal of t+e SA

¶69

sh+ws that intention of the respondl was no withdraw d,m,nd „,ti„ „„de, „,ti,„ 1342) ,f ISI Act by

¶70

th+ time respondent bank had not totrce ler section londenlank shows

¶71

of the A,t, h,„„ ,,nd„,t o+ th,

¶72

th£t it never meant for withdrawal under lsqcti,„ 13(2) odthe Act

¶73

ler find that in lieu of said Idema: appl: had filed bank and

¶74

rebresentation which was rejected by thI :espor1' .er was communicated. True cody of 'eply II respondent by letter dated 31.10.2022 hi been led as 4exure 4 of

¶75

C.A

¶76

ms, the first issue is replied accor< lgly 17. ltrce sale nbti has been [s earlier stated, that possession

¶77

a+mittedly served upon the appli It and proof service, the ondent bank has annexed the for s that the

¶78

p&ssession notice and sale noticeI duly rere se upon the abplicant

¶79

1891 le question has been raised th: two Lle not icI have been issuance of

¶80

.ed by the respondent bank. N4dlessi say

¶81

s+bsequent sale notice dated 16.0 II be Id4emed to be sued suppression of the earlier en

¶82

19 1 further find th,t ,ppli„„t h„ lsed lotice dated 01.2025. It has not been specin4ally rf ted by respondent The second question raised +y the )plican1 accordingly

¶83

swered

¶84

S.A. NoI 97 of 2025

¶85

In applicant in order to set aside the sa] ce iate iss Lea in favour of +he auction purchaser.

¶86

20.M

¶87

21.1 hpve considered that any of the reI+ef in }ur of applicant hi+ges upon the cancellation of $1e cate which a na+owed compass has been stipulat4d by Ibn’ble Ap+x Court in cage of CELIR LLP Vs. Mr. Sumati Prasad bafna obs. Known as Bafna Contempt Case

¶88

The Hon’ble The Apex C01 has led ajq+estion and 1 dd down ratio, as to the circums1 lees len a saje bf property b+ auction or other means under II lay be set ide after its confirmation. Their I Lord: IS havl )xamined a dn’ble ix Court. It s4ries of judgments pronounced by the hi It the most i o ][1 i s t J b„„ „id th,t p„,p„, ,f ,„ , d,n ,ul e burt to ke. d„ty df th, openness 0 tendin bidd woul be free to Pi 'alue IS sa lat onde hhe sale has bi be Sat asi1 unless lndamental p[ocedural error occurred or sale Irtifica{ has bel >btained by ons of s4veral other disrepresentation or fraud. After ldiscu: j+dgments their Lordships have prqpoun4 b the rajiol in para 218 qf th, j„dgm,„t.

¶89

P+„ N,. 218 ,f th, j„dg„„nt i, „p+,du,

¶90

'ernerl :thods once Any sale by auction or other pub+ic prob ',,dy ,,„n,m,d „ ,„„I„ded obght tl lot to ;et aside or 1 except on 'oundi lat go td the core of h as either lllusive. 'audulent or prlclrlg or Lderb: tg. M#r4 irregul r deviation from a rule which ddcs no] .ave an tndamental 'rocedural error does not take awK the lundati4nl of authority

¶91

¶92

S.A. IfoJ 97 of 2025

¶93

fo+ such proceeding. In such cases, 4ourts M particu[a+ should be mjndful to refrain entertaining any grou## f„ ,Halje„gi„g an ;tion which either could have b ken tak&n earli4r lbefore the

¶94

le was conducted ,„d ,o„A,m,d + wh,+RIn, ,ub+abi,1 i„j„,y .s been caused on „,,„„t ,f ,„,h +rregulh[ity. F I

¶95

lew of above discussions, I find that dy of th4 bound that

¶96

jy go to the core of ,„,h „1, p[oces,li b„,h ,sI e[th„ b,i.g

¶97

coilusive, h,„d„I,„t o, ,itiat,d by iddd,q„,td b,ici„g „ III I II

¶98

unperbidding has not been either I plead## or p+jed by the apblicant. I h4ve anxiously examineb as td khethed ahy material pr+judice has been ca„sed t, th, ,Jplic,n+1 1 fi„d +h4t ,ppli,a„t w+s well aware of the Securitizatio4 proc#Pings i+t fed by the re#pondent, the sale has been r+ghtfulM condqc fd by the re#pondent as all the statutory comblianc&I have bbeb shown to th& Tribunal. I I I I ! I

¶99

In view of above discussions, I do bot 6dHI any m+i+ in the

¶100

H+nee, the present SA No. 97/2025 1is dis4]ssed onjc4ntest being

¶101

d+oid of merit and disposed of acc4rding xM

¶102

A+cordingly, all the pending IAs if4ny, is $1so displ [ile be consigned to the record rook.

¶103

I III , '.' l[Pravas Kuma. .gh] I Pr+sjding cifncdr D+bts Recdv+ry Tribunal, II I I Lucknow. prond nced in It@ open court [Prava$ Kumar Sir. I PrFs}ding Officer Hs Rec+vbry Tribunal, Lucknow. I

¶104

T;(”~'

¶105

(Manoj

Ms Shree Ji Enterprises v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Shree Ji Enterprises v. Bank of Baroda

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

M S Vinayak Engineering Works versus Punjab National Bank

Musharraf Ansari versus Edelweiss Asset REconstruction company limited

Shailendra Ranjan versus Punjab National Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shri Punit Verma

Hdfc Bank versus ms balaji pvc uddyog

Naresh Kumar versus Fullerton India Home Finance Company Ltd.