Dismissed

Hadimba Agro Industry and Another v. Punjab and Sind Bank

DRT11 Sept 2026SA/166/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by borrowers challenging a bank's SARFAESI action. The Court held the claim was time-barred, ruling that limitation under Article 62 of the Limitation Act starts from the date the money became due (2014), not the loan sanction date (2012).

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; all pending interim applications were disposed of accordingly.

Hadimba Agro Industry and Another versus Punjab and Sind Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 166 of 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 166 of 2025

¶4

M/s Hadimba Agro Industry and another

¶5

Versus

¶6

Punjab and Sind Bank and another

¶7

Dated: 11.09.2026

¶8

Item No. 09

¶9

Argued by: Mr.Atul Sharma, Counsel for the Applicants. Ms.Mamta Malik, Counsel for Respondent Bank alongwith Mr.Harish Kumar, Nodal Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank.

¶10

M/s Hadimba Agro Industry and another (Applicants) have 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 Punjab and Sind Bank and another (Respondents).

¶11

Admittedly, on 30.03.2012, Punjab and Sind Bank, Manali Branch had sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 65 lacs to the Applicants to establishing a food proceedings unit. Applicants were entitled to some subsidy under the government scheme. To secure the loan, Applicants had created security interest in respect of the property, fully detailed in para No. 5.1 of the Securitization Application. Applicants state that they were regular in making the payment of installment. However, due to unforeseen circumstances and bureaucratic hurdles, the processes significantly impacted their ability to maintain progress. On 25.02.2014, Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding Rs. 70,71,462/-. Applicants have alleged that they were never served with the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFASI Act. Further, there is no CERSAI registration. On these facts, Applicants filed the present SA on 17.06.2025, challenging the SARFAESI action.

¶12

Bank, in reply to the SA, has denied the case of the Applicants. Bank has alleged that the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) were duly served

¶13

¶14

SA No. 166 of 2025

¶15

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶16

upon the Applicants. However, Applicants did not take any action in the matter. Bank has denied that there is no CERSAI registration. It is stated that whereas, the notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 26.08.2014; the present SA was filed on 17.06.2025. Accordingly, the SA is time-barred. Further, the Bank has also produced on the record CERSAI registration. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶17

I have heard Mr.Atul Sharma, counsel for the Applicants and Ms.Mamta Malik, counsel for Respondent Bank.

¶18

Relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Somnath Manocha versus Punjab and Sind Bank and another, LPA No. 942 of 2011, 2012(129) DRJ 654 (DB) , Mr.Sharma, counsel for the Applicants has argued that the loan was granted in the year 2012. The Bank had initiated the SARFAESI action after the limitation. Under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, the limitation has to be computed from the date of the loan. Since, the Bank has initiated the SARFAESI action beyond time, the present SA be allowed.

¶19

Per contra , Ms.Malik, counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the present is time-barred as the notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 26.08.2014 and Applicants filed the present SA on 17.06.2025. Accordingly, the SA be dismissed.

¶20

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶21

I am of the considered view that this is frivolous SA. Applicants had been served with the notice under Section 13(4) in the year 2014 and Applicants filed the present SA in 2025. Accordingly, the SARFAESI action is not time-barred. Under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, the limitation does not start from the date of loan but it starts from the date the money becomes due. In the case in hand, the loan was granted in the year 2012. Bank had demanded the money on 25.02.2014 by issuing the notice under Section 13(2). On 26.08.2014, notice under Section 13(4) was issued. Accordingly, it cannot be

¶22

¶23

SA No. 166 of 2025

¶24

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶25

said that the Bank initiated the SARFAESI action after the limitation. There is no merit in the present SA. The same is hereby dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶26

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

¶27

Pronounced in open court Dated: 11.09.2026 Manoj

¶28

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

¶29

Hadimba Agro Industry and Another v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hadimba Agro Industry and Another v. Punjab and Sind 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sunil Rajbanshi and Ors.

Nachattar Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Sri Ajay Raj versus Sir M Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Ram Patidar

Smt Bhagya T C versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus Rajappa