Dismissed

Nachattar Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank

DRT10 Sept 2026SA/233/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh dismissed a Securitization Application filed by borrowers under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that the bank had adequately proved service of necessary notices and valid CERSAI registration. Consequently, the application was found to be beyond limitation and devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act dismissed; pending IAs disposed of.

Nachattar Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 233 of 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 233 of 2025

¶4

Nachattar Singh and another

¶5

Versus

¶6

Authorized Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank

¶7

Dated: 10.09.2026

¶8

Item No. 53

¶9

Argued by: Mr.Akhilesh Vyas, Counsel for the Applicants.

¶10

Mr.ABS Sidhu, Counsel for Respondent Bank (on vc).

¶11

Nachattar Singh and another (Applicants) have 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 Authorized Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank (Respondent).

¶12

As per the Applicants, in the year 2018 and 2021, they had availed the following credit facilities:-

¶13

Nature of facility	Amount
Mortgage loan (09301200013236)	Rs.10,00,000/-
Vyapar OD (09301300012803)	Rs.6,00,000/-
Emergency Credit Line (09301200013486)	Rs.1,80,000/-

¶14

To secure the same, Applicant No. 2 had created security interest in respect of a house on plot no.278, total area measuring 102 Sq. yards and bearing khasra no.1272 min bounded as East; ownership of others, West; Remaining area of plot no.278, north: Plot no.335, and Gali, South: Plot no.277, situated in area of Rakba Sultanwind Urban, Abadi kot Atma Ram, Tehsil and District Amritsar, Hadbast no.386, owned and possessed by Smt. Paramjeet Kaur wife of Sh. Nachattar Singh, Resident of house no. 277, New Kot Atma Ram, Tehsil and District Amritsar as per sale deed dated 29.09.2008.

¶15

It is stated that Applicant No. 1 fell ill and he was diagnosed of Pancreatic Cancer. Applicants had approached the Bank and apprised the Bank Officers about the medical condition of Applicant No. 1. On 29.07.2024, Bank declared the account NPA. On 30.07.2024, it issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the

¶16

¶17

SA No. 233 of 2025

¶18

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶19

SARFAESI Act. On 19.02.2025, it issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. However, the possession notice was never served upon the Applicants. Further, the Bank filed an application before DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. On 14.06.2025, Bank obtained the order from DM. Bank approached the Tehsildar, who on 23.07.2025, issued a letter stating that the Applicants would be dispossessed on 18.07.2025. Applicants state that in the letter the house number of the Applicant has been wrongly mentioned as 278. In fact, the house number is 277. Again, the bank had not got the security interest registered with Central Registry. On these facts, Applicants filed the present SA on 12.08.2025 and prayed that the SARFAESI action be set aside.

¶20

Bank, in reply to the SA, has denied the case of the Applicants. It is stated that the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were duly served upon the Applicants. The CERSAI registration was also done. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶21

Mr.Vyas, counsel for the Applicants has argued that there is no proof of service of the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Mr.Vyas argued that the Applicants have produced on the record medical record of Applicant No.1 which shows that Applicant No. 1 is a patient of Pancreatic Cancer. Again, there is no CERSAI registration. Accordingly, the present SA be allowed.

¶22

Per contra , Mr. Sidhu, counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the Applicants were duly served with the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Bank has produced on the record the photograph showing the affixation of the possession notice. In these photograph the applicant is also shown. Bank has also produced on the record CERSAI report. Winding up his arguments, Mr.Sidhu submitted that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶23

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶24

¶25

SA No. 233 of 2025

¶26

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶27

Admittedly, on 29.05.2018, Applicants had been granted a loan of Rs.10 lacs and Rs. 6 lacs. Bank had sanctioned another loan of Rs. 1.80 lacs to the Applicants on 12.11.2021. Bank has produced on the record the service of notice under Section 13(4) in the form of a photograph of Applicant No.1 when the notice under Section 13(4) was being affixed. It has also produced on the record CERSAI registration. The notice under Section 13(4) was served upon the Applicants on 19.02.2025 and Applicants filed the present SA on 12.08.2025 and on the face of it the SA is beyond limitation. That apart, I am of the considered view that the bank has proved on the record that it had served the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. There is proper CERSAI registration. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present SA. The same is hereby dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶28

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶29

Pronounced in open court Dated: 10.09.2026 Manoj

¶30

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

¶31

Nachattar Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachattar Singh v. Punjab and Sind 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

Hdfc Bank versus M S Mohd Samim Contractor

Punjab National Bank versus Momin Sekh

Canara Bank versus B Prameela

Sardul Singh versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Smt. Anjali Devi versus Uco Bank

Ms. Bhagvati versus Development Finance Corporation Limited