The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of a Section 34 application filed by a debtor who had failed to deposit the required sum in satisfaction of dues, noting the secured asset had been auctioned, possession delivered, and sale certificate issued post-deadline.
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-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/6/2025 SH KEWAL SINGH Vs CANARA BANK
06.05.2026
Item No.31
Present: Mr. Mohd., Aamir, Counsel for the Applicant (on vc). Mr. Sumit Batra, Counsel for respondent bank.
Mr.Batra, counsel for the respondent bank states that the bank has sold the property for Rs. 82 lacs and odd sum and the auction purchaser has deposited the whole of the sale consideration. Further, the bank has also delivered the possession of the secured asset to the auction purchaser and issued the sale certificate in his favour.
Mr. Batra states that on 27.02.2026, applicant had made the statement that he would deposit Rs. 45 lacs on or before 12.03.2026 and another sum of Rs. 45 lacs by 30.03.2026. However, Applicant did not deposit Rs. 45 lacs on 12.03.2026 and the bank took the possession of the secured asset.
Again, on 13.03.2026, applicant had made a statement that he was ready to surrender the possession and that he would neither challenge the auction notice nor would challenge the sale.
In view of this, I am of the considered view that nothing survives in the present SA. Accordingly, the SA stands disposed of . File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
MANOJ
Sh Kewal Singh
Canara Bank
A S Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
