Dismissed

A2Z Departmental Store v. the Baghat Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT8 Apr 2026SA/212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging the auction of secured property under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal held the applicant was not entitled to challenge earlier notices after exhausting remedies in higher courts. It found the property description and valuation in the sale notice were legally adequate, as the property in borrower's possession would fetch

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application challenging the auction notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed.

A2Z Departmental Store versus the Baghat Urban Co. Operative… — Intellectual Property | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 212 of 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 212 of 2025

¶4

A 2 Z Departmental Store

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Baghat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited and others

¶7

Dated: 08.04.2026

¶8

Item No. 24

¶9

Argued by: Ms.Suja Joshi, Counsel for the Applicant alongwith Mr.Rajinder Singh/Applicant in person. Mr.Yogesh Jain, Counsel for the Respondent Bank. Mr.VK Sharma, Counsel for the Auction Purchaser alongwith Mr.Kulwinder Singh/in person.

¶10

A 2 Z Departmental Store, through its proprietor Rajinder Singh (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against the Baghat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (Baghat Bank) and others (Respondents).

¶11

The backgrounds facts are that on 03.12.2013, Baghat Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 35 lacs to M/s Blue Chip Computer Services, owned by Manju Devi wife of Rajinder Singh. Again, on 23.01.2020, Baghat Bank sanctioned a CC Limit of Rs. 25 lacs to A 2 Z Departmental Store, owned by Rajinder Singh. Both these loans were secured by mortgage of property measuring 0-8 Bighas (8 Biswas), situated in Muhal Sihardi Musalmana, Hadbast No. 769, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Since, Rajinder Singh and Manju Devi did not make the repayment, the Bank declared the accounts NPA. On 13.05.2021, Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding a sum of Rs. 37,00,880.54p, due as on 11.05.2021. This was followed by the possession notice dated 28.09.2021 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. As per the Applicant he made many attempts to resolve the matter by requesting the bank for One Time Settlement. However, the Bank did not respond to the same and rejected his proposal without any cogent reason. Aggrieved by this, Applicant filed CWP No. 6776-2021 in the Hon’ble

¶12

¶13

SA No. 212 of 2025

¶14

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶15

Himachal Pradesh High Court. Vide order dated 17.03.2022, Hon’ble the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the observations that the Bank will consider the request of the borrower to bring a buyer to the Bank to purchase the mortgage property. The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petitioner to approach the Bank within a period of 15 days and the Bank shall take a view on the same and convey its decision to the petitioner within a period of 30 days. As per the Applicant, he approached the Bank. However, the Bank refused any negotiation and also refused to issue the NOC of the sale of said premises. At this, Applicant filed CMA No. 5394 of 2022 in CWP No. 67762021 before the Hon’ble High Court, for modification of the order dated 17.03.2022. On the said CMA, the Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 17.05.2022, gave another opportunity to the Applicant to approach the Managing Director of the Bank. However, Applicant did not submit any representation and the Managing Director, vide order dated 14.09.2022 passed the order that the Applicant has not filed any representation. On 19.09.2022, Applicant filed case No. 46/2022 against the Bank before the Registrar Cooperative Societies. Applicant did not appear before the Registrar Cooperative Society, who vide order dated 16.06.2023, vacated the interim order. However, on 17.07.2023, Applicant filed CMP No. 341-2023 in CWP No. 6776-2021 against the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies. Vide order dated 22.09.2023, the Hon’ble High Court directed the Applicant to appear before the Registrar Cooperative Societies. However, vide order dated 09.07.2024, Registrar Cooperative Societies disposed of the representation made by the Applicant with the observation that there is no merit in the same. Earlier to that, Manju Devi filed SA No. 208 of 2022, which was dismissed in default on 11.09.2023. Again, A 2 Z Departmental Store filed SA No. 283 of 2024 against the possession notice dated 15.06.2024. However, the said SA was also dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2024. Applicant also filed Regular Appeal No. 214 of 2024 before the

¶16

¶17

SA No. 212 of 2025

¶18

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶19

Hon’ble DRAT, which vide order dated 29.07.2024 dismissed the same. Applicant also filed CWP No. 7116-2024 against the order passed by the DRAT. However, Applicant was not granted any relief. Again on 02.09.2024, Applicant filed CWP No. 9220-2024 for de-sealing the property, which was disposed of on 22.04.2025 and the order dated 05.09.2024 for de-sealing a portion of property was recalled. Applicant also filed CWP No. 9603-2025, which was decided on 01.07.2025. Again, Applicant filed SLP No. 29309 of 2025, which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2025.

¶20

From the record it is apparent that on 05.05.2025 Bank issued the auction notice for auction of the secured asset, with the reserve price of Rs. 1,22,36,500/-. The auction was fixed for 09.06.2025. Ms.Amarjit Kaur gave the highest bid of Rs. 1,22,86,500/- and the Bank sold the property to her in this auction.

¶21

3-A On 02.08.2025, Applicant filed the present SA, wherein he challenged the whole of the SARFAESI action as well as auction.

¶22

Though, Applicant has raised many other issues, yet, his main grievance in the SA is that proper description of the property was not given in the sale notice and secondly the bank undervalued the property.

¶23

Bank, in reply to the application, has denied the case of the Applicant. Bank alleged that it followed proper procedure while taking the SARFAESI action and while selling the property.

¶24

I have heard Ms.Suja Joshi, counsel for the Applicant; Mr.Yogesh Jain, counsel for the Respondent Bank.

¶25

Ms.Suja Joshi, counsel for the Applicant has submitted that proper description of the property has not been mentioned in the auction notice. Further, the Bank has undervalued the property. The market value of the property is more Rs. 3.50 crores. It is a four storey building. In the year 2021,

¶26

¶27

SA No. 212 of 2025

¶28

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶29

the Bank got valued the property at Rs. 1.78 crores and over a period of time the value of the property has also increased. She submitted that on these grounds, the auction is liable to be set aside.

¶30

Per contra , Mr.Jain, counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the property was valued properly and proper description of the property has also been mentioned in the sale notice. Mr.Jain submitted that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶31

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶32

I am of the considered view that as far as challenge to the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) are concerned, Applicants are not entitled to challenge the same. It has already been mentioned that earlier Applicants had filed SA No. 208 of 2022, which was dismissed in default on 11.09.2023. Again, A 2 Z Departmental Store had filed SA No. 283 of 2024 and that was also dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2024. An appeal filed by the Applicant before the DRAT was also dismissed on 29.07.2024. Applicant had also filed CWP No. 7116-2024 against the order of DRAT, which was also dismissed. Again, Applicant filed SLP No. 29309 of 2025 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the same vide order dated 28.07.2025. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the Applicants are not entitled to challenge the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶33

As far as the auction dated 09.06.2025 is concerned, Applicants have challenged the same on the ground that proper description of the property was not given in the auction notice. Further, the property has not been properly valued. As far as description of the property is concerned, it is admitted that Rajinder Singh is owner of 8 Biswas of land. Bank has produced on the record two valuations reports. In both the valuation reports, it is mentioned that total

¶34

¶35

SA No. 212 of 2025

¶36

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶37

built-up area is 466.40 sqm. I am of the considered view that no fault can be found with the same.

¶38

That apart, Applicants have also alleged the property has not been properly valued. Applicants have relied upon the valuation report of the year 2024, wherein the property has been valued at Rs. 2.50 crores. First of all in that valuation report, the built-up area has been mentioned as 523.88 sq. meter. The valuer has valued the property at a higher rate than collector rate. However, the valuer has not given any basis for the same.

¶39

That apart, a perusal of the record would show that right from 2021, Applicant has been litigating in respect of this property. Earlier, Bank had sealed the property. However, on the request of the Applicant, the property was de-sealed. Despite that, Applicant did not make the payment. Even at present, he is in possession of one floor of the property. The property which is in the possession of the borrower would certainly not fetch the same price, which the property in possession of the Bank would fetch.

¶40

I am of the considered view that the Bank has valued the property properly. Applicant has failed to prove that the Bank did not follow proper procedure in taking the SARFAESI action and in auctioning the property. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss the present SA.

¶41

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

¶42

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per

¶43

rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶44

Pronounced in open court Dated: 08.04.2026 Manoj

¶45

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

¶46

A2Z Departmental Store v. the Baghat Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A2Z Departmental Store v. the Baghat Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Hardeep Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Shri Mohd. Zafeer Khan

State Bank of India versus M/s Sheikh Indane

Hdfc Bank versus Bikar Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Bobby Genral Store

Kishan Singh versus Jana Small Finance Bank Limited