Dismissed

Sangita Manish Bhandari v. State Bank of India

DRT23 Jan 2026SA/146/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contesting of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's Securitisation Application challenging a mortgage property e-auction. The court held the sale valid, noting sequential notices complied with the SARFAESI Act and Rules, the reserve price was met by the successful bid, and the lack of competitive bidding or boundary maps did not invalidate the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application dismissed with no order as to costs and pending interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly.

Sangita Manish Bhandari versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on : 08.04.2022 Registered on : 22.04.2022 Decided on :23.01.2026 Duration : Y M D 03-09-15

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD

¶3

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2022

¶4

Smt. Sangita w/o Manish Bhandari, Age : 49 years, Occu. Service, R/o Flat No.401, Dhanwantri Heights, Near Datta Hospital, Juna Bazar, Ahemadnagar, Dist. Ahmednagar – 414 001 .. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, RBO Building, Plot No.1, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad – 431 003 Email Id : [email protected] IFSC Code : SBIN0012953

¶7

Mr. Manish Sheshmal Bhandari, Age : Major, Occu : Unknown, R/o Flat No.4, Chandranagari Apartment, Shinde Galli, Near Old Vasant Talkies, Maliwada, Ahmednagar

¶8

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 1 of 18

¶9

Shri Pramod Yadavrao Lanke, Age : Major, Occu. Unknown, R/o Flat No.F-1, CTS No.4522, Chandragiri Apartment, Yashashree Shinde Lane, Maliwada, Ahmednagar – 414 001 …. Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCE :

¶11

Applicant : Mr. M.M. Avhad, Advocate

¶12

Respondents : Mr. Pawan S. Agrawal, Advocate for Defendant No.1 Bank None for Defendant Nos.2 and 3

¶13

CORAM: DR. J.R. CHAUHAN, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Pronounced on : 23.01.2026)

¶16

This Securitisation Application (S.A.) under sub-section (1)

¶17

of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

¶18

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”) has been filed by the applicant

¶19

against the defendants, with the averments that the defendant No.1

¶20

bank is claiming certain financial facility against the present

¶21

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 2 of 18

¶22

applicant and her husband, who is joined as defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 is the husband of the present applicant and applicant has no information about the defendant No.2. Recently, the present applicant came to know about the auction conducted by the defendant bank and sale certificate registered with the SubRegistrar, Ahmednagar vide Day-Book No.2904/2021 dated 23.09.2021. The present applicant, after obtaining the copy of registered instrument, has filed the present application, also joining the auction purchaser therein. The defendant bank took the physical possession of immovable property of the applicant bearing flat No.F-1, 1^st floor, CTS No.4522, Municipal House No.4929 + 4930, Chandragiri Apartment, Yaashashree Shinde Lane, Maliwada, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar, admeasuring 49.47 sq.mtrs and terrace with 31.73 sq.mtrs with common amenities to the extent of 15.03% (hereinafter referred to as “mortgaged property”). The defendant bank published an e-auction notice dated 08.07.2021 , in which an outstanding amount of Rs.28,02,625/- was

¶23

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 3 of 18

¶24

claimed and reserve price was fixed at Rs.24,30,000/- in respect of the mortgaged property and e-auction was scheduled to be conducted on 28.07.2021, which was less than 30 days’ period from the date of publication of e-auction notice dated 08.07.2021, published in vernacular daily `Sakal’, Ahmednagar edition dated 11.07.2021.

¶25

It is further averred in the application that the defendant bank did not serve the notice as contemplated under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short, “SI Rules”). The defendant bank again published an e-auction notice in English daily Business Standard, Pune edition on 04.08.2021 in respect of the mortgaged property of the applicant, by which the e-auction was scheduled on 24.08.2021, which was within time span of 20 days from the date of publication, wherein the reserve price was reduced at Rs.21,87,000/- without any fresh valuation or any valid ground. No notice of sale was served upon the applicant. The defendant bank did not specify the amount outstanding for which e-

¶26

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 4 of 18

¶27

auction was conducted and the said amount was calculated upto 28.02.2019, which was of the demand notice and not as per the mandate of SI Rules. There was a single bid and not competitive bidding. The defendant bank issued sale certificate for sale price of Rs.21,97,000/- on 15.09.2021 and the same has been registered with the Registration Authority. The defendant bank did not get the security interest registered under CERSAI with Central Registry. The defendant bank did not serve the mandatory notice of redemption to the present applicant. The proceedings conducted by the defendant bank are bad in law and liable to be set aside, on the grounds that any deviation of mandatory provisions makes e- auction null and void and 30 days’ interval between the date of publication and the date of e-auction is mandatory. The defendant bank has sold the immovable property at throw-away price. The defendant bank failed to serve the notice under sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 of the SIRules. The computation of correct amount recoverable is mandatory in the e-auction notice. Hence, the e-auction made by

¶28

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 5 of 18

¶29

the defendant bank is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside. Thus, the applicant has prayed for allowing the S.A. by quashing and setting aside the e-auction in respect of the mortgaged property, conducted by the defendant bank on 24.08.2021.

¶30

The defendant No.1 bank has filed say/reply dated 26.05.2023 (Exhibit-12) and contested the S.A. on the grounds that the applicant has challenged the auction sale held on 24.08.2021 and the sale certificate dated 15.09.2021 by filing present S.A. on 08.04.2022. The application challenging the measures under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are barred by limitation and on this sole ground, the application needs to be dismissed. It is further submitted by the defendant bank that the applicant herself had annexed the auction notices dated 08.07.2021 and 07.08.2021 and she had knowledge that her property is put to sale and contention of the applicant that she recently came to know about the auction sale, is false. The defendant bank took physical possession of the mortgaged property. The auction notice was

¶31

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 6 of 18

¶32

published on 08.07.2021 and auction was to be conducted on 28.07.2021. The allegations that the immovable property was put to sale on 17.04.2021 by publishing an auction notice for reserve price of Rs.24,30,000/- and auction was to be conducted on 25.05.2021, have been denied. The auction notices dated 17.04.2021 were published in two newspapers, one in vernacular language and the another in English newspaper. No bid was received and hence, auction sale had failed. The defendant bank again published an auction sale notice on 08.07.2021 and reserve price was fixed at Rs.24,30,000/- and the auction was to be conducted on 28.07.2021, but the said auction also had failed. Rule 9(1) provides that on failure of sale as per Rule 8(5), the authorised officer can publish the sale notice within not less than 15 days. In the present case, the subsequent notice of sale of 15 days was published. The defendant bank, after failure of second sale, had reduced the reserve price to Rs.21,87,000/- and put the immovable property for sale by issuing auction notice dated

¶33

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 7 of 18

¶34

02.08.2021 and the auction sale was fixed on 24.08.2021. The auction notice dated 02.08.2021 was published in Business Standard and Daily Sakal on 04.08.2021 and the property was auctioned at Rs.21,97,000/-, which was purchased by defendant No.3. The auction sale notice dated 02.08.2021 was published in newspaper on 04.08.2021 and the sale was conducted on 24.08.2021, which was beyond the period of 15 days as per the Proviso to Rule 9(1) of the SI Rules. Defendant No.3 was the highest bidder and therefore, the auction was confirmed in his favour. The defendant No.3 has deposited the auction price of Rs.21,97,000/- with defendant No.1 on 07.09.2021 and sale certificate was issued on 15.09.2021 and registered document was also executed on 24.09.2021 and the same was registered at the Day-Book serial No.2904-2021 in the office of Sub-Registrar at Ahmednagar. The physical possession of the property has also been handed over to defendant No.3/auction purchaser. The required registration with CERSAI was done by defendant No.1. Defendant

¶35

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 8 of 18

¶36

No.1 denied all other allegations of the applicant made in the

¶37

present S.A. and dismissal of the S.A. was prayed for.

¶38

The applicant, in support of the averments made in the application, has filed the following documents on record vide list of documents (Exhibit-4).

¶39

Sr. No.	Description of document	Exhibit
1	Copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M.A. No.21/2022 & M.A. No.29/2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020, dated 10.01.2022	A-1 (colly)
2	Copy of e-auction notice dated 08.07.2021 published by defendant bank in Daily Sakal on 11.07.2021	A-2
3	Copy of e-auctin notice published in Business Standard Pune Edition dated 04.08.2021	A-3
4	Copy of sale certificate dated 15.09.2021 with record of its registration	A-4

¶40

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 9 of 18

¶41

5. The defendant No.1 bank has submitted the following

¶42

documents on record vide list of documents (Exhibit-13):

¶43

Sr. No.	Description of document	Exhibit
1	Copy of paper publication dated 17.04.2021 in daily newspaper	R-1
2	Copy of paper publication dated 08.07.2021 and 02.08.2021 in daily newspaper	R-2 (colly)

¶44

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through

¶45

the entire material available on record, including written arguments of defendant No.1, on the basis of which, I proceed to record my findings in this case for the reasons to follow :

¶46

The applicant has challenged only the sale proceedings in the present S.A. and allegations of defendant No.1 bank that the applicant is challenging the measures under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are barred by limitation, are

¶47

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 10 of 18

¶48

not sustainable. Therefore, the S.A. of the applicant challenging the

¶49

sale proceedings is within limitation.

¶50

It is admitted fact in this case that the applicant and her husband - defendant No.2 raised a loan from the defendant No.1 bank. The possession of the mortgaged property was taken by the bank after following the proper procedure under the SARFAESI Act. The sale of the mortgaged property was held on 24.08.2021 and the reserve price was fixed at Rs.21,87,000/- in view of sale notice dated 02.08.2021.The sale certificate was issued on 15.09.2021. The sale certificate was registered on 24.09.2021 at the Day-Book Serial No.2904-2021 in the office of Sub-Registrar at Ahmednagar.

¶51

The applicant has challenged the sale proceedings on the ground that no notice of 30 days was given to the applicant or it was published in the newspaper, which is violation of the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the first sale notice was issued on 17.04.2021

¶52

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 11 of 18

¶53

and the same was published in two newspapers, one in vernacular language and another in English newspaper, but no bid was received and auction failed. The second sale notice was issued on 08.07.2021 and sale was fixed for 28.07.2021, but no bid was received and the sale auction failed. The defendant bank again issued sale notice dated 02.08.2021 and sale was fixed for 24.08.2021. the sale notice was published in two newspaper on 04.08.2021. It was the third sale notice and for first sale notice, 30 days’ prior notice is required to be issued and for subsequent sale notice, it is required to be issued for 15 days. Since the sale notice dated 02.08.2021 was for subsequent sale and it was got published in two newspapers on 04.08.2021, the sale was effected on 24.08.2021 and therefore, it was a valid notice for more than 15 days to the applicant and general public from the date of publication of the sale notice. The defendant No.1 bank has produced record of paper publication of sale notices as per list of documents (Exhibit-

¶54

that the notice dated 17.04.2021 was published in local

¶55

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 12 of 18

¶56

language newspaper Sakal’ and another in English newspaper. The sale notice dated 08.07.2021 was also published in two newspapers and in the like manner, sale notice dated 07.08.2021 was published in Business Standard dated 04.08.2021 and Marathi language newspaper Sakal’ dated 04.08.2021. Therefore, defendant No.1 has produced all the sale notices as Exhibit-R-1 and Exhibit-R-2 (colly), respectively in the list of documents (Exh-13). Therefore, defendant No.1 bank has issued sale notice in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶57

The applicant has also challenged the sale proceedings on the grounds that in the first sale notice dated 17.04.2021, the reserve price was fixed at Rs.24,30,000/- and similar was the position in second auction sale notice dated 08.07.2021, but in subsequent third sale notice, it was reduced to Rs.21,87,000/- without any valuation. The another plea has also been taken by the applicant that the outstanding amount for recovery, of which the property was being

¶58

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 13 of 18

¶59

sold, was shown as Rs.28,02,625/- being the demand notice amount in all the auction sale notices, whereas demand notice was issued on 20.02.2019. Both these grounds for challenging the auction sale are not sustainable, reason being that once the first two sales had failed for reserve price of Rs.24,30,000/-, in subsequent sale, defendant No.1 bank reduced the reserve price as Rs.21,87,000/-, whereupon the sale was conducted for more than reserve price being Rs.21,97,000/-. The applicant has not produced any document, showing the valuation as on the date of sale in order to dispute the reserve price fixed by the bank and therefore, in absence of documentary evidence, the applicant now cannot dispute the reserve price fixed by the bank.

¶60

No doubt, in all sale notices, the outstanding dues for recovery has been shown, which were reflected in demand notice dated 20.02.2019 being Rs.28,02,625/-. It is also established on record that the applicant or defendant No.2 borrower did not make any efforts for settlement of the loan account. The applicant, in the

¶61

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 14 of 18

¶62

S.A., has claimed that she even does not know as to where the co-

¶63

borrower i.e. her husband is residing at this time. Therefore,

¶64

referring the outstanding dues of the demand notice in the sale

¶65

Notices cannot be said to be a fundamental breach of the SI Rules.

¶66

It is also submitted on behalf of the applicant that only one bidder was there at the time of sale on 24.08.2021 and it was thus not a competitive bid and if it would have been there, the mortgaged property would have fetched more money than the sale price and on this ground, the sale in question is liable to be set aside.

¶67

As per Proviso to Rule 9(2), it is provided that no sale under this Rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by the sale price is less than the reserve price as specified under sub-rule (5) of Rule

¶68

In this case, reserve price was fixed for Rs.21,87,000/- and the sale was effected for Rs.21,97,000/- and hence, the sale was not for less than the reserve price and defendant No.1 bank has rightly issued sale certificate on 15.09.2021 in favour of defendant No.3 –

¶69

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 15 of 18

¶70

auction purchaser. The applicant has produced copy of sale certificate as Exhibit-A-4 vide list of documents (Exhibit-4). The applicant has also produced copies of e-auction notices dated 08.07.2021 and 04.08.2021 as Exhibit-A-2 and Exhibit-A-3, respectively vide list of documents (Exhibit-4) and the same have already been referred in the foregoing paras of this judgment.

¶71

It was also submitted on behalf of the applicant that no boundaries of the suit property have been shown in sale notices placed on record by the applicant as well as defendants. On perusal of the sale notices, produced by both the parties, the details of the property have been shown as flat No.F-1, 1^st floor, CTS No.4522, Municipal House No.4929 + 4930, Chandragiri Apartment, Yashashree Shinde Lane, Maliwada, Ahmednagar. No doubt, the boundaries of the suit property have not been mentioned in the sale Notices. It may be noted here that defendant No.1 bank has taken physical possession of the mortgaged property, which has been sold away to defendant No.3 – auction purchaser and even further

¶72

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 16 of 18

¶73

handed over the possession of the mortgaged property to the auction purchaser – defendant No.3. These facts prove that the details given in the auction notices are sufficient to identify the suit property and if there was any dispute regarding identity of the mortgaged property, the auction purchaser could have raised objection at the time of inspection of the mortgaged property or at any time subsequent stage of taking physical possession. Therefore, this is no ground for quashing the sale proceedings conducted by the defendant No.1 bank.

¶74

In view of the reasons recorded and the findings arrived at by me as above, I pass the following order:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(A) Securitisation Application No.146 of 2022, filed by the

¶77

applicant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶78

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 17 of 18

¶79

(B) In view of dismissal of S.A. No.146 of 2022, interlocutory application, pending if any, stands disposed of accordingly in terms of the present judgment.

¶80

¶81

(D) Copy of this judgment and order be uploaded on the website.

¶82

(Dr. J.R. Chauhan), PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶83

Aurangabad

¶84

Date : 23.01.2026

¶85

[N. Jahagirdar] [S.A.No.146/2022] Page 18 of 18

Sangita Manish Bhandari v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Manish Bhandari v. State Bank of India

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

Punjab National Bank versus Ujwala Sanjay Galande

Punjab National Bank versus Kakasaheb Raghunath Pathare

Bank of India versus Mr. Santosh Baburao Jivrak

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Tuljabhavani Transport

Canara Bank versus Rahul Prakash Surdakar

Central Bank of India versus Gayatri Prakash Khare