The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside SARFAESI measures directed by DCB Bank. The Court held the application was filed beyond the statutory 45-day limitation period without condonation of delay.
Application dismissed as time-barred; record consigned to record room.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH
PRESIDED OVER: SH. MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH
SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.161/2026
Date of Institution: 08.04.2026 Date of Decision: 25.06.2026
---Applicants
Versus
Authorised Officer, DCB Bank Ltd. SCO No.54-55, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala
---Respondent Argued by: Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for Applicants (through VC) Sh. Ashutosh Bajpai, Advocate for Respondent (through VC)
FINAL ORDER
(1) This Securitization Application was filed under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) to set aside notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 22.05.2023 (Annexure A-1A), possession notice dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure A-2), order under Section 14 of the Act dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Patiala and letter dated 24.02.2026 issued by Tehsildar, Patiala (Annexure A-4) being illegal, perverse and in violation of the provisions of the Act.
(2) It was stated in the application that applicants had availed loan against property for an amount of Rs.12.30 Lacs in the year 2019 from the respondent; that the said loan facility was secured against mortgage of residential property i.e., House No.B-28/668 near Bansal Clinic Mohalla Bhattrian, Patiala (Sale Deed No.5575 dated 18.08.1998); that respondent had obtained signatures of the applicants on blank papers and utilized them later on for the
2 SA/161/2026 PRINCE AND ANOTHER VS. DCB BANK LTD.
purpose of documentation of the said loan; that applicants never executed any loan agreement or any other loan document with respect to the said loan; that applicants initially have been maintaining the aforesaid loan account in accordance with the Terms of sanction; that however, later on due to Covid 2019 Pandemic, applicants suffered great loss due to shutting down of their small business, which adjusts started 4-5 months ago prior to lockdown; that thereafter, applicants again started paying instalments to the respondent after arranging the same with great difficulty; that applicants have paid 50% of the loan i.e., approximately Rs. 06 Lacs; that respondent unilaterally enhanced the loan sanction amount from Rs.12.30 Lacs to Rs.13,16,583/and also extended the instalment tenure; that the same has been done by the bank illegally without the consent of the applicants; that further to the utter shock of the applicants, respondent on its own sanctioned another loan for an amount of Rs.2.40 Lacs on 03.02.2021; that applicants never consented to the same or executed any loan document with regard to the said loan; that thereafter, respondent illegally classified the loan accounts as NPA on 04.04.2023; that thereafter, applicants came to know that the respondent has initiated action under the Act, however, no notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served upon applicants; that applicants came to know about the SARFAESI action initiated by respondent only when respondent issued the possession notice dated 28.07.2023; that the said notice was found lying in the street by the neighbour of the applicants and was handed over to the applicants; that the said notice was never served by way of registered post, affixation and publication as mandated by the law; that upon coming to know about the action of the bank, applicants immediately approached the bank and submitted representation dated 25.09.2023 and requested for reasonable time for payment of the due instalments; that however, respondent insisted on payment of total outstanding amount as claimed in the possession notice dated 28.07.2023; that thereafter, respondent had obtained order dated 27.10.2025 from the office of District Magistrate, Patiala under Section 14 of the Act; that
3 SA/161/2026 PRINCE AND ANOTHER VS. DCB BANK LTD.
applicants were never served notice of hearing by the office of District Magistrate, Patiala before passing orders under Section 14 of the Act; that the copy of the order was also not provided to the applicants and applicants came to know about the order dated 27.10.2025 from the letter No.201-205 dated 24.02.2026 issued by Tehsildar, Patiala in pursuance to the order dated 27.10.2025; that the said letter has been issued by the Tehsildar, Patiala for taking physical possession of the secured asset on 25.04.2026; that respondent has obtained order dated 27.10.2025 from the office of District Magistrate, Patiala by filing an application and affidavit on false and frivolous facts; that respondent has not complied with the provisions of the Act in filing the application as well as the affidavit under Section 14 of the Act; that action initiated by respondent under the Act is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Act, thus the entire SARFAESI proceedings is liable to be set aside. Therefore, it was prayed that the present SA may kindly be allowed.
(3) Reply filed by respondent.
(4) It was stated in the reply that the present SA is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed; that the present SA is barred by limitation as applicants have conveniently calculated the limitation for filing the SA from the date of letter issued by Ld. Tehsildar, which is not a measure for filing the Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Act; that vide sanction letter dated 01.11.2019, business loan amounting to Rs.12,30,000/- was sanctioned in favour of applicants; that the terms and conditions of the said sanction letter was duly accepted by applicants, whereby equitable charge by way of mortgage over the subject property being vasika No.5575, House No. B-28/668, Near Dr. Bansal Clinic, Mohall Bhatrian, Patiala, Punjab was created in favour of the respondent; that applicants were granted moratorium due to Covid-19 Pandemic due to which the duration of the loan facility was altered; that the same was done in furtherance of the request of the applicants; that subsequently, vide letter dated 19.08.2020, borrower had availed the ECGLS facility amounting to Rs.2,40,000/and executed the
4 SA/161/2026 PRINCE AND ANOTHER VS. DCB BANK LTD.
supplementary loan agreement dated 28.01.2021; that applicants had failed to maintain financial discipline in the loan facilities availed and the accounts of applicants were classified as NPA on 04.04.2023 and further demand notice dated 22.05.2023 under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued demanding payment of Rs.14,69,942.41p as total outstanding dues towards all the loan facilities availed; that the said demand notice was duly served upon applicants as per Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for brevity) but neither the dues were cleared nor any objections were raised by the applicants to the said notice; that since the borrowers/guarantors failed to make payments in terms of the notice dated 22.05.2023, respondent was constrained to issue possession notice dated 28.07.2023; that possession notice was served upon all the borrowers/mortgagors/guarantors and was published in two newspapers being Spokesman (Punjabi) and Indian Express (English) and the same was affixed at the premises of the mortgaged property; that non-payment of dues by applicants led to filing of application under Section 14 of the Act before Ld. District Magistrate, Patiala; that Ld. Magistrate has pleased to allow the application vide order dated 27.10.2025; that thereafter, in furtherance of the order dated 27.10.2025, Tehsildar had issued letter dated 24.02.2026 for taking physical possession of the mortgaged/subject property on 25.04.2026; that applicants apparently being aggrieved by the letter dated 24.02.2026 preferred the present SA, which is barred by limitation; that all the actions taken by respondent are in accordance with law. Therefore, it was prayed that the present SA may kindly be dismissed.
(5) No replication was filed by applicants to the reply filed by respondent. (6) I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for Applicants (through VC) and Sh. Ashutosh Bajpai, Advocate for Respondent (through VC) and gone through the record carefully. (7) Sh. Ashutosh Bajpai, Advocate argued that the present SA is liable to be dismissed being time
5 SA/161/2026 PRINCE AND ANOTHER VS. DCB BANK LTD.
barred. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, it may be decided that whether the present SA was filed within the limitation or not. It was further argued that applicants have not came before this Tribunal with clean hands, therefore applicants are not entitled to get any relief from this Tribunal. It was further argued that possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 28.07.2023 and order under Section 14 of the Act was passed by District Magistrate on 27.10.2025 and the present SA was filed on 08.04.2026, which is beyond the period of limitation. It was further argued that in the present matter applicants had challenged the letter issued by Tehsildar, Patiala dated 24.02.2026 for taking physical possession of the secured asset on 25.04.2026 (Annexure A-4). It was further argued that the said letter is not measure for filing the Securitization Application as per the Act, therefore the present SA is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation and applicants were unable to explain any sufficient reason for such delay and no application was filed for condonation of delay by applicants. It was further argued that applicants were admitted in the SA, that applicants were came to know about the SARFAESI proceedings in the year 2023 when possession notice was issued on 28.07.2023. Therefore, it was prayed that the same may be dismissed on this score only. (8) Per contra , Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate argued that notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 28.07.2023 but the same was not served upon applicants as per Rules. It was further argued that order under Section 14 of the Act was passed on 27.10.2025 and applicants were parties in the said application but neither any notice was served upon applicants before passing the said order nor the copy of the order was provided to the applicants at any stage. It was further argued that applicants came to know about the aforesaid order only when the letter dated 24.02.2026 was issued by Tehsildar, Patiala for taking possession of the secured asset on 25.04.2026 and accordingly, applicants had approached before this Tribunal by way of filing the present SA from the date of knowledge well within the limitation period and there
6 SA/161/2026 PRINCE AND ANOTHER VS. DCB BANK LTD.
is no delay in filing the present Securitization Application.
(9) In the SA, applicants had calculated the period of limitation from the possession letter dated 24.02.2026 issued by Tehsildar, Patiala ( Annexure A- 4 ).
(10) It was admitted by learned counsel for applicants that possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 28.07.2023 (Annexure A-2) and order under Section 14 of the Act was passed by District Magistrate on 27.10.2025 (Annexure R-7).
(11) In fact, any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-Section (4) of the Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his Authorised Officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee under Section 17 of the Act, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken. In sub-Section (4) of the Section 13 nowhere it is provided that a letter issued by Tehsildar in compliance of order passed by the Magistrate concerned under Section 14 of the Act is a measure. In fact, such letter is an information for the execution of the order passed under Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, limitation to file SA cannot be counted from date of such letter.
(12) Order dated 27.10.2025 passed by Magistrate concerned under Section 14 of the Act was challenged by applicants in the SA. Therefore, the limitation should be counted for filing of the SA from the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure A-2) or from the order dated 27.10.2025 under Section 14 of the Act.
(13) Section 17 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provides, the time limit of 45 days of filing application under this Section from the date on which a measure had been taken referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his Authorised Officer. Therefore, this SA was to be filed within 45 days from the date of measure referred to in subSection (4) of Section 13 or sale notice.
7 SA/161/2026 PRINCE AND ANOTHER VS. DCB BANK LTD.
(14) Date of knowledge has nothing to do with seeking of condonation of delay and delay has to be calculated from the date of the order. This shows that time of knowledge was manufactured in the mind of applicants only with the purpose of explaining the delay. The theory of calculating the limitation from the date of knowledge of the order is fraught with throwing to the winds the Law of limitation and this Tribunal is not ready to accept the same.
(15) It was argued by Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate that applicants were came to know about the proceedings initiated by respondent against applicants only when the letter of dispossession was issued by Tehsildar on 24.02.2026 (Annexure A-4) and accordingly the SA was filed. (16) The above statement of learned counsel for applicants is not believable as applicants themselves were pleaded in the SA in para 5(ix) that ‘ applicants came to know about the SARFAESI action initiated by the respondent Bank only when the respondent Bank issued the possession notice dated 28.07.2023. The said notice was found lying in the street by the neighbor of the applicant and was handed over to the applicants .’
(17) Except it, after receiving the possession notice dated 28.07.2023, applicants had also moved representation dated 25.09.2023 and copy of the same is annexed as Annexure A-3 to the SA.
(18) In light of above averments pleaded in the SA by applicants shows that applicants were duly aware about the SARFAESI proceedings well within the limitation period but they are waiting for another action of the bank to get an favourable order by creating pressure upon the Tribunal at the eleventh hour.
(19) All above facts shows that this SA was filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days.
(20) No application was filed by applicants for condonation of delay in filing the present Securitization Application rather Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate has argued that there is no delay in filing the present Securitization Application. As discussed above, applicants had calculated the time of limitation from the wrong date.
8 SA/161/2026 PRINCE AND ANOTHER VS. DCB BANK LTD.
(21) The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transcore Vs. Union of India and Another (2008) 1 SCC 125 has held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security.
(22) In light of above facts and circumstances, this SA was filed beyond the period of limitation. No reason whatsoever explained for non-filing of SA within the limitation period. No formal application or oral prayer was made to condone the delay in filing the present Securitization Application.
(23) Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate further argued that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 22.05.2023 was not served upon applicants as per Rules. Therefore, applicants were unable to raise objections under Section 13(3-A) of the Act.
(24) Per contra , Sh. Ashutosh Bajpai, Advocate argued that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 22.05.2023 was duly served upon applicants as per Rules. It was further argued that copies of receipts of registered posts along with tracking reports were annexed as Annexures R-2 & R-3 (Colly).
(25) Copy of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 22.05.2023 is annexed as Annexure R-2 and copies of receipts of registered post along with tracking reports were annexed as Annexure R-3 (Colly), which shows that the said notice was duly served through registered post.
(26) In light of above factual position, it is established that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was validly issued and also served upon applicants as per Rules. There is no illegality/irregularity in the issuance and service of above notice.
(27) Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate further argued that possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 28.07.2023 was not served upon applicants as per Rules.
(28) Per contra , Sh. Ashutosh Bajpai, Advocate argued that possession notice was issued and served strictly in accordance with law. It was further argued that copy of possession notice along with copies of
9 SA/161/2026 PRINCE AND ANOTHER VS. DCB BANK LTD.
receipts of registered posts as well as publication in two newspapers i.e., one in ‘Indian Express’ (English) and in ‘Spokesman’ (Punjabi) are annexed as Annexures R- 4 (Colly) to R-6.
(29) In light of above factual position and evidences on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the possession notice was prepared and served upon applicants as per Rules. Nothing is on record which can show that possession notice was defective or not served according to Rules. Except it, it reveals from record that notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued and sent on the same address as was mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. As discussed above notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was duly served upon applicants, therefore it may safely presumed that notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also received by applicants through registered post.
(30) Except it, after service of notice under Section 13(4) of the Act upon applicants, they had moved representation dated 25.09.2023 and copy of the same is annexed as Annexure A-3 to the SA. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that notice was not served upon applicants as argued by learned counsel for applicants.
(31) Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate further argued that no notice was served upon applicants before passing the order under Section 14 of the Act by District Magistrate, Patiala.
(32) Per contra , Sh. Ashutosh Bajpai, Advocate argued that it is not mandatory to serve the notice upon applicants by District Magistrate, Patiala before passing of order under Section 14 of the Act.
(33) In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, there is no provision of issuing of notices to applicants before passing any order under Section 14 of the Act and there is force in the above argument of Sh. Ashutosh Bajpai, Advocate.
(34) Though other grounds were taken by the applicants in the SA and few of the same were argued but in light of the above discussion, no adjudication of those grounds is required.
10 SA/161/2026 PRINCE AND ANOTHER VS. DCB BANK LTD.
(35) After considering the above facts, circumstances, arguments and evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that present SA was filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days and no explanation is on record for condoning the delay. No illegality/irregularity was shown in the proceedings initiated by respondent as discussed above. In light of above facts, the present SA is liable to be dismissed being time barred and also on merits. (36) Accordingly, this SA is dismissed. Record be consigned to record room after due compliance. Date: 25.06.2026 Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Securitization Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is barred by limitation.
Whether the Tribunal is liable to examine merits of the application when the filing is time-barred.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Transcore Vs. Union of India and AnotherReferred¶41
Transcore Vs. Union of India and Another (2008) 1 SCC 125 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Prince S/o Sh. Prem Singh
Smt. Harjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Prem Singh
Authorised Officer, DCB Bank Ltd.
Mridulesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
