Dismissed

Sunita v. the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

DRT11 Feb 2026SA/104/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging the bank's SARFAESI action. The court upheld the bank's procedural compliance, noting proper service of notices and lack of evidence that the secured asset was agricultural land as claimed by the applicant.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed, and pending IAs were disposed of accordingly.

Sunita versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 104 of 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 104 of 2025

¶4

Sunita

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Limited

¶7

Dated: 11.02.2026

¶8

Item No. 18

¶9

Argued by: Mr.Yogesh Kumar and Mr.Sukhvinder Singh, Counsel for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank.

¶11

Ms. Sunita (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Limited (Respondent).

¶12

In brief, the case of the Applicant, as set-up in the Securitization Application is that in the year 2015, Respondent had sanctioned a Term Loan Facility (Non-farming sector) of Rs. 10 lacs to her. To secure the same, husband of the Applicant had stood surety and had executed mortgage-deed, in favour of the Bank. As per Bank, Applicant was not regular in making the payments of EMI. On 03.06.2016 and 08.08.2016, Bank issued the notice. On 12.09.2016, Bank also issued legal notice to the Applicant. On 31.08.2016, Bank declared the account NPA. On 31.10.2016, Bank also informed the Applicant that the account had turned NPA. On 04.05.2017, Applicant paid Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 11,810/on 24.04.2018. On 01.06.2022, Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. However, the payment was not made. On 12.12.2022, Bank took the symbolic possession of the property. The possession notice was published in ‘Divya Himachal’ and ‘Hindustan Times’, dated 17.12.2022.

¶13

SA No. 104 of 2025

¶14

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶15

In the SA, Applicant has alleged that the secured asset is agricultural land. Accordingly, Bank could not initiate the SARFAESI action. Further, the notice under Section 13(2) was not served upon the Applicant. Bank has charged excessive interest. It is stated that there was no CERSAI registration. Accordingly, Applicant alleged that the SARFAESI action be set aside.

¶16

Bank, in reply has denied allegations. Bank alleged that the notices were duly served upon the Applicant. It is stated that the secured asset is not agricultural land. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶17

Mr.Yogesh Kumar, in his contention, has reiterated the facts mentioned in the application and has alleged that the Bank cannot take SARFAESI action as the secured asset is agricultural land. Further, the notices were not served upon the Applicant. Accordingly, Mr.Yogesh Kumar submitted that the present SA be allowed.

¶18

Per contra , Mr. Anil Sharma, counsel for the Respondent Bank has denied the case of the Applicants.

¶19

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶20

Bank has produced on the record a copy of sanction letter dated 09.10.2015 and agreement of Term Loan. As per agreement of Term Loan, Applicant had raised the loan for some shuttering business. Again, Bank has produced on the record the mortgage-deed executed by husband of the Applicant. In the mortgage-deed, it has nowhere been mentioned that the secured asset is agricultural land. Bank has also produced on the record notice dated 03.06.2016 and 08.08.2026 as well as legal notice dated 12.09.2016. It has also produced on the record the notice under Section 13(2) dated

¶21

SA No. 104 of 2025

¶22

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶23

01.06.2022 (Annexure R-11) alongwith postal receipts and acknowledgment. The acknowledgments have been signed by the Applicant and her husband. Again, Bank has produced on the record possession notice dated 12.12.2022, which has also been signed by the Applicant and her husband. Apart from that, Bank has also produced on the record photographs of the service of the possession notice.

¶24

On the basis of above materials, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present SA. The same is hereby dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶25

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to both the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶26

Pronounced in open court Dated: 11.02.2026 Manoj

¶27

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

Sunita v. the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita v. the Kangra Central Cooperative 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

Mr Amiya Sardar versus Idbi Bank

Ms Akshaya Color Gallery versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus Virendravikram

Canara Bank versus Major Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Ravinder Singh

Ms Bolt Gym and Spa versus Bank of India