Dismissed

Ms Rays and Ors. v. Axis Bank

DRT9 Jul 2026SA/211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act challenging the Respondent Bank's possession of secured assets. The court held that possession taken in compliance with Section 13(4) read with Rule 8 following a dismissed challenge was a valid compliance of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Application SA/211/2022 dismissed against Respondents; possession of property upheld as valid.

Ms Rays and Ors. versus Axis Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – 1, KOLKATA JEEVANSUDHA BLDG. 9^TH FLOOR, 42/C, J.L. NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA – 700071

¶3

BEFORE SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA 211 of

¶5

2022

¶6

M/s. Rays, a proprietorship firm having its office at 109A, G. T. Road (South), P.S.Howrah, Dist.- Howrah, Pin code- 711101.

¶7

Mrs. Putul Roy, Proprietress of M/s. Rays, daughter of Sri Deben Chandra Das & Wife of Sudipto Roy, Sarat Chatterjee Road, P.S.Chatterjeehat, Shibpur, Howrah Corporation, Pin- 711102.

¶8

Mrs. Sandhya Roy, wife of Sri Ajit Kumar Roy, residing at premises No. 53/13, Dharmatala Lane, P.S.- Shibpur, Howrah Corporation, Pin711102.

¶9

Mr. Sudipta Roy, son of Sri Ajit Kumar Roy, residing at premises No. 650, Sarat Chatterjee Road, P.S.- Chatterjeehat, Shibpur, Howrah Corporation, Pin- 711102.

¶10

..............Applicants

¶11

-VERSUS-

¶12

The Authorised Officer, Axis Bank Ltd., having its office at 01, Shakespear Sarani, AC Market Building, 4^th Floor, P.S.Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata – 700071.

¶13

...........................Respondent

¶14

For Applicants : Mr. Debasish Chakraborty, Md. Salahuddin Ld. Counsels.

¶15

For Respondents: Mr. Samrat Mukherjee, Mr. Rajeev Maity,

Ms. Kuhli Deb., Ld.

Counsels

J U D G M E N T

Delivered on 9^th

July 2026

Sarfaesi Applicants have filed application u/s 17(1) of the Sarfaesi Act which is registered as SA/211/2022 in which Applicants have challenged possession notice. Applicants have given representation to demand notice which was replied by bank. Bank has already taken possession of the property on 24.06.2025 alleging non -compliance of statutory direction for which measures of the Respondent Bank are not sustainable.

¶23

Sarfaesi Applicants havealso alleged that affixation of possession notice under Rule 8(1) has to be made before seeking order under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act. But in this case, the respondent bank obtained order of the learned Magistrate on 9.1.2025 and affixed possession notice on 24.6.2025 and took possession of the secured asset.

¶24

Sarfaesi Applicants have further alleged that after receiving demand notice Applicants have submitted representation but which has not been disposed of by Respondent Bank.

¶25

¶26

Respondent Bank has filed objection denying allegation by the Applicants. They have filed some documents in IA/719 of 2025 in which Respondent Bank has annexed Possession Notice dated 12/06/2022 which is received by the Applicants Borrower. They have also published Possession Notice and annexed application u/s 14- and nine-point affidavit.

¶27

Respondent Bank has also filed Possession Notice dated 24/06/2025 with postal receipts, copy of inventory, panchanama, publication of Possession Notice and affixation of Possession Notice.

¶28

Applicants have annexed Demand Notice in the SA and objection to the Demand Notice dated 01/04/2024 in which Applicants have disputed outstanding claim and NPA. Respondent Bank has relied to the representation vide letter dated 22/04/2022 so, objection of the Applicants is that Possession Notice was not served is not satisfactory as Applicants have received the Possession Notice and include the same in their application.

¶29

Sarfaesi Applicants have challenged order of the learned CJM, Howrah, dated 9.1.2025 in IA 1803 of 2025 which was

¶30

¶31

dismissed on contest against the Respondent Bank vide order dated 28/10/2025 of this Tribunal. This Tribunal held that possession of the property on 24/06/2025 and inventory in presence of Head Cleark of Ld. CJM, and Authorised Officer of the Respondent Bank are valid compliance of section 13(4) read with rule 8(1) and (2) and Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act. All the actions of the Respondents are according to the SARFAESI Act and Rules. There is no merit in the application u/s 17(1) of the Sarfaesi Act. Hence, it is ordered as follows:

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

i) SA/211/2022 is dismissed on

¶34

contest against the

¶35

Respondents.

¶36

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order

¶37

be uploaded in the

¶38

Tribunal’s website.

¶39

File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶40

(Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 9^th July, 2026.)

(Ambuja Mohan Das)

Presiding Officer

		Order Sheet (	continu	ation)
Case NO. S 2022	A 211 of	M/S. RAYS AND	ORS -	VS-AXI	S B
Date of the Order		Order w	ith Sig	nature
9^th July 2026	Ld. appeared Ld.	Advocate Mr. Deba for the Sarfaesi App Advocate Mr. Samr	sish C licants at Muk	hakrab . herjee,	orty Mr
	Responde	Ms. nts.	Kuhli	Deb	app
	Ma 18/06/20	tter was heard in 26.	open	Court	on
	The The gist o	detailed order in f the order is as foll	three ows:	pages	ann
				Or	der
	i)	SA/211/2022 is Respondents.	dismis	sed on	co
	Cop Tribunal’s File	y of the Judgmen website. is consigned to the	t/Final Record	Order Room	be .
	(Dic and prono	tated to P.S., tran unced by me in th	scribe e open	d by h Court	er, on
	July 2026	)

¶45

¶46

(Ambuja Mohan Das)

Ms Rays and Ors. v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Rays and Ors. v. Axis 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

Indusind Bank Limited versus Ms Mcleod Russel India Limited

Sri Ashok Kumar Bhalotia versus Hdfc Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Kalyani Bar

Ms Najmul Dresses and Anr. versus Axis Bank

Shampa Dey and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal versus Uv Asset Reconstruction Company Limited