Dismissed

Kundan Lal Thakur v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

DRT23 Apr 2026SA/193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellants challenged Securitization Application notices under the SARFAESI Act, alleging procedural irregularities and improper service of objections. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that objections were sent to an incorrect email address. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and all pending Interim Applications were dismissed.

Kundan Lal Thakur versus PNB Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 193 of 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 193 of 2025

¶4

Kundan Lal Thakur and another

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Authorized Officer, PNB Housing Finance Limited

¶7

Dated: 23.04.2026

¶8

Item No. 03

¶9

Argued by: Mr.Sahil Khunger and Ms. Ravisha, Counsel for the Applicants. Mr.Nitin Grover and Mr.SC Prajapati, Counsel for Respondent FI.

¶10

Kundan Lal Thakur 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), the Authorized Officer, PNB Housing Finance Limited (Respondent).

¶11

The case of the Applicants, as set up in the Securitization Application, is that in the year 2015, they had availed a loan of Rs. 15 lacs from DHFL. However, Respondent FI allured them and stated that they were ready to offer lesser rate of interest. Accordingly, the loan was taken over by the Respondent and home loan facility was given vide account No. NHL/JAL/0819/739774, for an amount of Rs. 30,25,000/-. Apart from this, a Top Up loan was also sanctioned to the Applicants. To secure the same, Applicant No. 1 had created security interest in respect of House No. 115-A, New Hardev Nagar, Basti Bawa Khel, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, in favour of Respondent. Applicants state that they had been making the payment regularly. However, on 14.11.2024, they were surprised to get a demand notice under Section 13(2), which stated that the account had been declared NPA on 08.11.2024. As per the notice under Section 13(2), a sum of Rs. 35,90,038.38p was due as on 14.11.2024 (the notice dated 14.11.2024 is Annexure A-1). Applicants for the first time came to know that the housing loan of the Applicants had been fraudulently converted to non-housing loan. Applicants also came to know that the Respondent has charged exorbitant amount towards penal and other charges. Their account was wrongly declared NPA. The Bank officials also visited the house of the Applicants and threatened the Applicants to either pay Rs. 35,90,038.38p, otherwise Respondent FI would take

¶12

¶13

SA No. 193 of 2025

¶14

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶15

the possession. Applicants state that on 10.01.2025, they filed objections to the demand notice. However, the Respondent FI without taking into consideration the objections, proceeded further in the matter. On 18.01.2025, they demanded a copy of agreement from the Respondent. On 13.02.2025, Respondent issued the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Respondent has been continuously threatening to dispossess them. Applicant No. 2 had approached the Respondent FI for settlement of dues. However, Applicants were shock to know that the Respondent has obtained the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act from District Magistrate and the Tehsildar, Jalandhar has fixed 16.07.2025 as the date for dispossession.

¶16

On these facts, Applicants filed the present SA, wherein they challenged the notice under Section 13(2), dated 14.11.2024; possession notice dated 13.02.2025 and the notice dated 27.06.2025 issued by the Tehsildar, Jalandhar.

¶17

In reply, Respondent has denied the case of the Applicants. It is alleged that the Applicants have concealed material facts from this Tribunal. The present SA has been filed just to delay the recovery by the Bank. The notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) were duly served upon the Applicants. The SA is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶18

I have heard Mr.Sahil Khunger, counsel for the Applicants and Mr.Nitin Grover, counsel for the Respondent FI.

¶19

Mr.Khunger, counsel for the Applicants has argued that the Applicants had filed the objections which were not disposed of by the Bank. There is no proper CERSAI registration. Accordingly, the present SA be allowed and the SARFAESI action initiated by the Respondent FI be set aside.

¶20

Per contra , Mr.Grover, counsel for the Respondent FI has argued that the Applicants had not sent the objections under Section 13(3A) to the authorized officer. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Applicants have submitted the objections. Regarding the CERSAI report, Mr.Grover submitted 2

¶21

SA No. 193 of 2025

¶22

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶23

that there is no error in the CERSAI report. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶24

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶25

A look at the notice under Section 13(2) would show that in para No. 11 of

¶26

the notice, it has been mentioned as under:-

¶27

11. Please further note that we shall not be responsible for not responding to any of your representation made in response to this notice if same is addressed to any other person or place except the authorized Officer(AO).Any correspondence in this regard may be addressed to the Authorized Officer at the below mentioned Branch office:-

¶28

PNB Housing Finance Limited, SCO-44, First Floor, PUDA Complex, Jalandhar-144001.

¶29

However, a copy of the screenshot submitted by the Applicants would show that the objections were sent to the Nodal Officer at the email id [email protected] and not to the authorized officer as mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Applicants had filed the objections before the authorized officer.

¶30

Regarding the CERSAI report, it is in respect of house No. 115-A, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar. I am not been able to find any defect in the CERSAI report also. I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present SA. The same is hereby dismissed .

¶31

All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶32

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.

¶33

Pronounced in open court Dated: 23.04.2026 Manoj

¶34

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

¶35

Kundan Lal Thakur v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Lal Thakur v. PNB Housing Finance 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sukhbir Singh

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Harbhej Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh Kuldeep Singh

Bank of India versus Taranjeet Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ram Chand

State Bank of India versus Sh. Alam Hussain