The DRT dismissed an application seeking to quash SARFAESI proceedings. The court rejected claims regarding improper notice issuance to a deceased guarantors heirs, unauthorized loan conversion, and coercion in mortgage execution, finding the bank complied with statutory requirements.
Application to quash proceedings and restrain possession was dismissed with costs.
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.
SA 201 of 2023 (J)
1
DRT. PATN A
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATN A
Presiding Officer: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav
SA- 201 of 2023
..................Applicants
Versus
......................... Respondents
Presents;
For the Applicants : Sh.S.K Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Sh. S.K Tiwari, Advocate
For The Respondent 3 to 6
: None
Dated: 29.01.2026
JUDGMENT
2
SA 201 of 2023 (J)
DRT, PATN A
issued a demand notice dated 10.11.2022 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. followed by a possession notice dated 19.05.2023 under Section 13(4) of the said Act. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said possession notice. the applicant has filed the present Securitisation Application.
- The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent bank issued a demand notice dated 10.11.2022, wherein the bank demanded a sum of ?33,89.809.18, being the aggregate amount of two loan accounts–one Cash Credit account and one FITL account. It is submitted by the applicant that the FITL loan was never requested by the borrower. It is further submitted that the possession notice dated 19.05.2023 was issued in the name of a deceased guarantor, namely, Late Ram Nandan Singh, who had passed away on 23.12.2022, and no such notice was served upon his legal heirs. It is also contended that the said possession notice was not issued in accordance with Appendix IV of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.It is further submitted that the applicant had approached the bank for an ECLGS loan. but the same was denied by the bank. The applicant also contended that the mortgage deed was executed on 1 1.10.2018 and registered on 03.01.2019, whereas the loan limit was sanctioned only on 22.11.2019. It is further alleged that the mortgage was created for ?30,00,000/-, while the sanctioned loan amount was ?25.00.000/and that the mortgage was created under coercion.
3
SA 201 of 2023 (J)
DRT. PATN A
/;bA
4
SA 201 of 2023 (J)
DRT, PATN A
mortgage deed was executed on 11.10.2018 and registered on 03.01.2019. The sanctioned limit mentioned as ?30,00,000/- represents the maximum permissible limit, and there is no irregularity in registering the deed after its execution. Further, there is no illegality in disbursing the loan amount after registration, as the language of the mortgage deed itself contemplates such an arrangement as evident from annexure 7 at page 42-52 of the SA. The respondent bank, in its supplementary counter affidavit, has also filed a written statement of the applicant submitted in OA No. 264/2023, wherein at paragraph 4(c). it has been admitted that the mortgage was executed by the applicant and that the loan amount was disbursed after some gap. This statement clearly indicates that there was no element of coercion, as also evident froTn page 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit
ORDER
The application SA 201 of 2023 filed by M/S Aman Poultry Farm and Ors, is dismissed with costs.
[KaustglendraYadav]
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna
Judgment signed. sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 29111 Day of January. 2026.
[KaushalendraYadav]
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was valid despite allegations of defects in service and mortgage execution.
Whether the conversion of a Cash Credit account to a Funded Interest Term Loan (FITL) during the COVID-19 moratorium renders the recovery proceedings illegal.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S Aman Poultry Farm Under Proprietorship of Sri Dheeraj Kumar
Dheeraj Kumar
The Authorized Officer, UCO Bank
The Zonal Manager, UCO Bank
Kaushalendra Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
