Dismissed

Smt Sunita Devi v. Punjab National Bank

DRT30 Jan 2026SA/7/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicants' application seeking quashing of SARFAESI proceedings. Despite finding that statutory notices were properly served and CERSAI registration allegations unproven, the Tribunal held that the applicant's persistent failure to implead the borrower, a necessary party, constituted gross negligence and non-prosecution, precluding any relief.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with costs on grounds of non-prosecution due to failure to implead a necessary party.

Smt Sunita Devi versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA 07 of 2023 (J)

DRT.PATNA

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 07 of 2023

¶7

Smt. Sunita Devi, W/o Sri Rahul Singh, R/o I. T.I. Jaiprakash Nagar. Ward 14. P.O. Barwatparsarayeen, P.S. Mufassil, Dist. Bettiah, Bihar – 845438.

¶8

..................Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle SASTRA. Circle Office, (SASTRA) Champaran, Ullwal Complex, 3rd Floor, V-Bazaar, Chandmari Chowk, Motihari, East Champaran 845401.

¶11

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank (Formerly United Bank of India) Bettiah Branch, Bettiah 845438.

¶12

................ Respondents

¶13

Presents;

¶14

For the Applicant : Sh S.K. Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Sh S.K. Tiwari, Advocate

¶15

Dated: 30.01.2026

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The present application has been filed seeking to quash the entire SARFAESI proceedings including the possession notice dated 15.11.2021 and the respondent bank may be restrained from taking the physical possession.

¶18

During the pendency of the SA, the applicant filed several interlocutory applications, namely: IA No. 573/2022 for condonation of delay; IA No. 653/2024 seeking amendment of the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal; IA No. 308/2025 for stay of the auction sale scheduled to be held on 14.05.2025; IA No. 504/2025 seeking extension of time for compliance with the order dated 19.09.2024; IA No. 533/2025 for stay of the auction sale of the secured asset scheduled to be held on 29.08.2025/08.09.2025; and IA No. 703/2025 seeking stay of the auction sale scheduled to be held on 06.12.2025.

¶19

3 The brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicant is the guarantor for a loan availed by her husband, the proprietor of M/s Vaishnavi Hardware, for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000, and to secure the loan, the applicant mortgaged her property. Due to default in repayment, the bank classified the loan as NPA on 31.03.2021

SA 07 of 2023 (J)

DRT.PATNA

and issued a demand notice dated 23.06.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, followed by a possession notice dated 15.11.2021 under Section 13(4). Thereafter. the respondent bank approached the District Magistrate under Section 14, pursuant to which a joint order dated 08.10.2022, signed by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah, was passed. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has filed the present securitization application.

¶24

On the point of limitation, the applicant submitted that they were not interested in approaching the court earlier, as they were attempting to settle the matter directly with the bank. When these efforts did not succeed, they approached the Hon’ble Tribunal. Therefore, the delay in filing the securitization application was unintentional and may be condoned.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's husband availed two loans from the respondent bank: one cash facility of Rs. 10,00,000 and another of Rs. 5,00,000 under the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Loan Scheme. It is further submitted that the respondent bank neither served the demand notice nor the possession notice upon the applicant, and that the possession notice was neither affixed to the secured asset nor published in the newspaper, while the details of the property mentioned in the possession notice are incorrect. It was further submitted that the applicant availed the Rs. 10,00,000 loan to expand the business, but the respondent bank transferred a sum of Rs. 3,60,289 from that loan to the Mudra Loan account. It is also submitted that the property is not registered under CERSAI. The bank has issued multiple sale notices, including those dated 09.04.2025, 21.08.2025, and 14.11.2025, and it is submitted that the sale notice dated 14.11.2025 was neither served upon the applicant, affixed to the secured asset, nor published in the newspaper, and that the mandatory 30-day gap between notices was not provided.

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that due to default in repayment, the loan account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, the bank issued a demand notice dated 23.06.2021 under Section 13(2) of the Act, which was duly served upon the applicant. Subsequently, the bank issued a possession notice dated 15.11.2021 under Section 13(4) of the Act, which was duly served, published in two newspapers, and affixed to the secured asset. It was further submitted that the order dated 08.10.2022 passed jointly by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police under Section 14 of the Act has now become infructuous.

¶27

7 I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and gone through the records.

iIIIIbN<br>

SA 07 of 2023 (J)

DRT,PATNA

It is alleged by the applicant that the respondent bank neither served the demand notice nor the possession notice upon the applicant, and that the possession notice was neither affixed to the secured asset nor published in the newspaper. with the details of the property mentioned therein being incorrect. It is further alleged that the property is not registered under CERS AI. It is also alleged that the sale notice dated 14.11.2025 was neither served upon the applicant, affixed to the secured asset. nor published in the newspaper, and that the mandatory 30-day gap between the notices was not provided.

¶33

Before considering the merits of the case, it is to be noted that the applicant has not impleaded the borrower, Sri Rahul Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh. in the present proceedings. Although the applicant filed an interlocutory application (IA 279/2024) to implead the borrower, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Tribunal on 19.09.2024 with a cost of Rs. 200, the applicant failed to comply with the order. The case was reserved on 13.05.2025 without impleadment of the borrower, and as the borrower is a necessary party, the Hon’t)Ie Tribunal dereserved the case on 10.07.2025 for impleadment of the borrower. Once again, the applicant failed to implead the borrower, and the case was reserved again on 04.12.2025. This persistent failure to bring in a necessary party demonstrates gross negligence on the part of the applicant and is a serious procedural defect. Their absence prevents the effective adjudication of the dispute and leads to a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. This conduct demonstrates negligence on the part of the applicant and may result in the dismissal of the case on this ground alone

¶34

Upon perusal of the record, it is found that the demand notice dated 23.06.2021 was sent by post to the applicant on 24.06.2021, as is evident from the xerox of the postal receipt at page 21, annexed to the counter affidavit.

¶35

So far as the service of the possession notice is concerned, the respondent bank has filed a xerox copy of the possession notice at page 23 of the counter affidavit, bearing the signature of Sunita Devi, showing that the applicant was duly served with the notice. Further, the said possession notice was published in the newspapers The Hindustan and The Hindustan Times on 20.11.202 1. as evident from pages 26–29 of the counter affidavit, and was affixed to the secured asset, as evident from pages 24–25 of the counter affidavit. As regards the allegation that the details of the mortgaged property in the possession notice are incorrect, the respondent has submitted in their counter affidavit that it is merely a typographical error. Upon perusal of the record, it appears to be a typo, as only the tauzi number is incorrect, while all other details are accurate.

($$

DRT.PATNA

SA 07 of 2023 (J)

As far as CERS AI is concerned, the bank has not submitted any CERSAI report. Regarding the allegations related to the sale notice, none of the parties have informed the Hon’ble Tribunal about the sale, and it appears that the sale has not taken place; therefore. all allegations in this regard have become infructuous.

¶41

In view of the above discussion and in view the fact that despite directions and opportunities the necessary parties have not been impleaded. It amounts to non prosecution also. As such no relief can be granted to the applicant. SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The application SA 07 of 2023 filed by Smt. Sunita Devi., is dismissed Withr costs. /;’' ~P a:/”- a“

¶44

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶45

Presiding Officer

¶46

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶47

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 30111 Day of January, 2026.

ba/

by’,=P

[KaushalendraYadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Smt Sunita Devi v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sunita Devi v. Punjab National Bank

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

S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Kishan Mitrapal Chawla Dairy

Bank of India versus Ms Narmada Pipes

Ms Khajuria Constructions and Another versus State Bank of India

Raj Kumar Baniya versus State Bank of India

Smt Firoja Begum versus Indian Bank