Dismissed

Ashiful Haque v. Punjab National Bank

DRT24 Feb 2026SA/12/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a bank's SARFAESI actions regarding NPA classification, demand notices, and auction of two mortgaged properties, holding the procedures followed were in compliance with the Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

SA 12/2024 and affiliated interim applications (IA/914/2025, IA/668/2025, IA/3094/2024) were dismissed; pending IAs were also dismissed.

Ashiful Haque versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – 1, KOLKATA JEEVANSUDHA BLDG. 9^TH FLOOR, 42/C, J.L. NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA – 700071

¶3

BEFORE SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA 12 of

¶5

2024

¶6

ASHIFUL HAQUE, (PAN NUMBER:ABSPH1344P), Son Of AZIZUL HAQUE, Balihatta (Paschim Para) Balihatta, P.O. & P.S.- Pandua, Hooghly, PIN:- 712149, West Bengal.

¶7

…… Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, (IFSC CODEPUNB0166800), having its Registered Office, Circle Office, Hooghly, 23A, Rai M C Lahiri Bahadur Street, P.O.-Serampore, Pin Code:712201, West Bengal.

¶10

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, having its Registered Office, Circle Office, Hooghly, 23A, Rai M C Lahiri Bahadur Street, P.O.-Serampore, Pin Code:712201, West Bengal..

¶11

…… Respondents

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Somnath Roy, & Mr. Sanat Kumar Das, Ld. Counsels.

¶13

For Respondents: Ms. Anindita Das. Ld. Counsel

J U D G M E N T

Delivered on 24^th

February 2026

This Sarfaesi Applicant has filed application u/s 17(1) of the Sarfaesi Act,2002 contending that he has taken Cash Credit facility of Rs. 9,50,000/- on 22/02/2022 and Term Loan of

¶19

Rs. 10,00,000/- on 07/07/2022. Applicant has challenged in the SA the classification of account as NPA on 30/05/2023 and Demand Notice dated 26/07/2023 demanding sum of Rs. 20,09,325.49 within 60 days and Possession Notice dated 09.11.2023.

¶20

Applicant has also filed IA 668 of 2025 challenging order of Ld. C.J.M, Hooghly dated 24/04/2024 and IA/914/2025 challenging notice dated 25/02/2025 issued by Advocate Commissioner and subsequently order of ld. C.J.M. dated 27/01/2025 after order dated 24/04/2024. Applicant also filed IA 3094 of 2024 challenging sale notice dated 04/11/2024 and publication of sale notice date 11/12/2024 .

¶21

Respondent Bank has filed three affidavits as objection to the SA and both IAs contending that the Applicant has not challenged the Demand Notice u/s 13(3A) of the Sarfaesi Act. It is contended by the Respondent Bank that sale has been conducted on 26/11/2024 and one Mr. Yousuf Ali becomes Successful Bidder who paid

¶22

Rs. 65,89,000/-. Thereafter Bank

¶23

¶24

issued sale confirmation letter dated 27/12/2024 which is annexed as Annexure ‘A’.

¶25

It is also submitted that respondent Bank served Sale Notice to the Applicant and publish sale notice in the newspaper. Respondent Bank has also annexed valuation report.

¶26

In the affidavit in opposition to IA/914/2025 Respondent Bank has contended that Bank has obtained physical possession of the property on 24/04/2024 and this IA/914/2025 is filed after 45 days and the property has been sold in e-auction in favour of Mr. Yousuf Ali and Sale Certificate has been issued on 13/03/2025.

¶27

At the time of hearing of SA and pending IAs Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that on the basis of order of Ld. CJM dated 24/04/2024 Bank has taken possession of two properties. Subsequent order of Ld. Magistrate dated 27/01/2023 was in respect of one property but Respondent Bank has taken possession of two properties. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant argued that there is no clear 15 days from sale notice for redemption of the property. Applicant has relied upon authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M. Rajendran & Ors. Versus M/S Kpk Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Sale certificate

¶28

¶29

has been issued on 13/03/2025. Applicant has filed IA/914/2025 on 25/03/2025 and IA/3094/2024 on 24/12/2024 and applicant has challenged sale notice on 07/01/2025.

¶30

At the time of hearing of SA and IA, Ld. Advocate for the Applicant did not argue regarding NPA. His only argument is that no period has been given to the borrower for redemption of the property. As per Rule 9(1) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 Sale Notice issued on 04/11/2024 for sale of the property on 26/12/2024. As per pleadings of the Applicant publication of sale notice was made on 11/12/2024. So, there is sufficient time given to the borrower for redemption of the secured asset by paying the outstanding dues but the Applicant has not paid the outstanding dues. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M. Rajendran & Ors. Versus M/S Kpk Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. held there is no need of separate notice but there must be one composite notice.

¶31

In this case paper publication was made giving sufficient time to the Applicant/borrower to exercise right of redemption but the sale notice and paper publication of sale both notices are the same notice. There is no ground for the Applicant to be prejudiced.

¶32

¶33

Other allegation made by the Applicant /Borrower on the notice of the Advocate Commissioner that one property is required to be taken possession as per order of Ld. Magistrate. Notice of Advocate Commissioner dated 25/02/2025, was issued to the Applicant/Borrower Mr. Ashiful Haque and Mr. Ariful Haque. As per Demand Notice both Mr. Ashiful Haque and Mr. Ariful Haque are the borrowers. There are two secured properties;

¶34

1.All that piece & parcel of Bastu land area 4.37 satak along with pucca structures standing thereon situated at Mouza- Pandua, J.L No 108, R.S Dag No.822 corresponding to L.R Dag No 1091, LR Khatian No 12244, PS Pandua, Dist: Hooghly.R egistered at the office of DSR I, Hooghly vide being No. I13123/19 for the year 2019, recorded in Book No. I, CD volume no. 0601-2019, Page from 277045 to 277062. Property is standing in the name of Mr Ashiful Haque S/o Late Ajijul Haque.

¶35

All that piece & parcel of Bastu land area 4.37 satak situated at Mouza Pandua, JL No 108, RS Dag No 822 corresponding to LR Dag No. 1091, L.R Khatian No 12238, PS Pandua, Dist Hooghly.Registered at the office of DSR I, Hooghly vide being No. I-13120/19 for the year 2019, recorded in Book No. I, CD volume no 0601-2019, Page from 277063 to 277080.

¶36

¶37

Property is standing in the name of Mr. Ariful Haque S/o Late Ajijul Haque.

¶38

Both Mr. Ashiful Haque and Mr. Ariful Haque are sons of Late Ajijul Haque. Possession notice dated 09.11.2023 is also issued to both the borrowers in respect of two properties. Nine-point affidavit filed by the Authorised Officer of the Bank speaks of two properties. Ld. Magistrate passed order dated 24/04/2024 in respect of property mentioned in the application. Order dated 27/01/2025 of Ld. CJM is modification of order dated 24/04/2025 directing Mr. Arka Nag instead of Head Clerk to execute the order of Magistrate to take possession of the property mentioned in the scheduled i.e. L.R Dag No 1091, LR Khatian No 12244 which is belongs to Mr Ashiful Haque who is the Applicant in the SA.

¶39

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has argued that bank has taken other properties in LR Dag No. 1091, L.R Khatian No 12238 which is recorded in the name of Ajijul Haque. Ajijul Haque is not the Applicant in the SA.

¶40

Respondent Bank has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Akella Lalitha -vs Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr., judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s. Lucky Footwear Components & Ors. -vs-

¶41

¶42

The authorised officer, Indian Bank & Ors. (Para 92) and Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. -vs- The State of Maharashtra (Paragraph 18).

¶43

Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s. Lucky Footwear Components & Ors. -vsThe authorised officer, Indian Bank & Ors. at Para 9.2 and 9.3 has observed that the borrower has to be given 15 days’ time for redemption before sale of property which in this case Respondent Bank has given.

¶44

Ld. Advocate for respondent bank has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Akella Lalitha -vs Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr. In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:

¶45

“It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice.”

¶46

Ld. Advocate for respondent bank has also relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. -vsThe State of Maharashtra. Hon'ble

¶47

¶48

Bombay High Court at Paragraph 18 has observed that:

¶49

“18. Section 14 does not contemplate the following:-

¶50

(i) Any notice to be given to either Borrower or a Third Party,

¶51

(ii) Borrower or a Third Party to file any reply to the application,

¶52

(iii) Borrower/Third Party to be heard,

¶53

(iv) Adjudication as to the legality or validity of the mortgage.

¶54

(v) Adjudication as to the quantum of the debt claimed by the secured creditor.

¶55

(vi) Adjudication of any issues such as limitation, etc.”

¶56

So, on consideration of the pleadings

¶57

of the parties in SA and IA, it appears that Mr. Ashiful Haque and Mr. Ariful Haque are the borrowers and they have mortgaged two properties. Demand Notice and Possession Notice speak of two properties. Bank has put for sale two properties. Bank has also taken possession of two properties by order of Ld. Magistrate.

¶58

The allegations made by Sarfaesi Applicant espousing cause of his brother Ajijul

¶59

¶60

Haque is not sustainable. Applicant failed to establish ground for relief in the SA and IA. Demand Notice, Possession Notice and Sale Notice were issued as per the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. All the actions of the Respondents are according to the SARFAESI Act and Rules. Hence, it is ordered:

¶61

O R D E R

¶62

i) SA/12/2024 alongwith IA/914/2025, IA/668/2025 and IA/3094/2024 are dismissed on contest against the Respondents.

¶63

ii) Pending IA, if any is also dismissed.

¶64

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶65

File is consigned to the Record Room. (Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 24^th February 2026.)

¶66

(Ambuja Mohan Das)

¶67

Presiding O

¶68

Ashiful Haque v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashiful Haque v. Punjab National Bank

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

State Bank of India versus Subhankar Mondal

Axis Bank versus Ms D.M.P Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Uco Bank versus Ms Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Ms Sanjay Shoe and Another versus Uco Bank

Mrs Sonali Bhattacharjee versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Kalpana Halder and Others