Allowed

Kiranjeet Kaur v. Uco Bank

DRT23 Jan 2026SA/257/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal set aside the auction of a mortgaged property held by UCO Bank under the SARFAESI Act because the bank failed to serve a valid 30-day notice prior to the auction, violating statutory requirements for enforcement of security interest.

What did the court decide?

Auction dated 26.08.2025 set aside; bank directed to refund deposit with interest, pay Rs. 10,000 compensation, and cancel sale certificate.

Kiranjeet Kaur versus Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 257 of 2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 257 of 2025

¶4

KIRANJEET KAUR VERSUS UCO BANK AND ANOTHER

¶5

Dated: 23.01.2026

¶6

Item No. 43

¶7

Argued by: Sh.Bhupinder Gupta, Counsel for the Applicant alongwith Ms.Kiranjeet Kaur/Applicant in person. Sh.Anil Sharma and Sh.SR Kajla, Counsel for the Respondent No.1/ UCO Bank.

¶8

Sh.Vivek Verma, Counsel for the Auction Purchaser.

¶9

Kiranjeet Kaur (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 UCO Bank and another (Respondents).

¶10

Vide sanction letter dated 04.10.2017, UCO Bank had sanctioned a Home Loan of Rs. 10 lacs to the Applicant and her son Akashdeep Singh. The loan was repayable in 192 monthly installments, commencing from November, 2018. To secure the loan, Applicant had created security interest in respect of plot No. 101 and 102 measuring 7 marlas, 87 sq. feet, situated at Abadi Alipur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Again vide sanction letter dated 28.05.2018, UCO Bank had sanctioned a Home Loan of Rs. 10 lacs to the Applicant and her son. The said loan was repayable in 180 monthly installments. The plot in question was the security. Vide sanction letter dated 23.01.2023, UCO Bank had sanctioned another loan of Rs. 8 lacs to the Applicant. Applicant did not make the repayment and Bank issued the recall notice dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure A-14). On 02.05.2024, Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding a sum of Rs. 28,04,172.58p. Vide auction notice dated 23.08.2024, Bank put up the property for auction at the reserve price of Rs. 53,04,397/-. It is stated that the matter was reconciled and the Bank dropped the SARFAESI action. Again on 29.01.2025, UCO Bank classified the account as NPA. Vide notice dated 30.01.2025, the credit facility was recalled. Thereafter, on 11.02.2025,

¶11

¶12

SA No. 257 of 2025

¶13

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶14

Respondent Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Vide notice dated 20.04.2025, Bank took the symbolic possession of the property under Section 13(4). On 20.07.2025, Bank published the auction notice at the reserve price of Rs. 53,04,397.31p. On 09.08.2025, Bank again published the auction notice at the reserve price of Rs. 45,84,000/-. The auction was fixed up for 26.08.2025. On 27.08.2025, Bank intimated to the Applicant that the auction conducted by the Bank on 26.08.2025 has been successful. However, the Bank did not disclose the name of the auction purchaser.

¶15

On these facts, Applicant filed the present SA.

¶16

Respondent Bank, in reply to the SA, has alleged that the Applicant did not make the repayment and the Bank was left with no alternative, except to put up the property for auction.

¶17

During the pendency of the SA, Applicant also impleaded the auction purchaser as party to the present SA. Notice was issued to the auction purchaser and Mr.Vivek Verma has put in appearance on behalf of the auction purchaser.

¶18

Mr.Bhupinder Gupta, counsel for the Applicant has argued that the Bank did not issue any 30 days notice for auction to the Applicant. He submitted that though the Bank had issued the notice dated 20.07.2025, yet, in the said notice the date, time and place of auction was not mentioned. In the said notice, the reserve price was mentioned as Rs.53,04,397.31p. Again, Bank issued the auction notice dated 08.08.2025, fixing the reserve price at Rs. 45,94,000/-. Mr.Gupta submitted that the auction conducted on 26.08.2025 is liable to be set aside as the Bank never gave 30 days notice for the first auction.

¶19

¶20

SA No. 257 of 2025

¶21

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶22

Mr.Anil Sharma, counsel for the Respondent Bank admits that the Bank did not serve any 30 days notice for the first auction upon the Applicant.

¶23

Mr.Vivek Verma, counsel for the auction purchaser also admits that no 30 days notice for the first auction was given to the Applicant.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the auction dated 26.08.2025 is liable to be set aside as the Bank did not serve 30 days notice for the first auction. In the first notice, the time, date and place of auction was not mentioned. In the second notice, Bank had given 15 days time to the Applicant. Further, in the first notice the reserve price was mentioned as Rs.53,04,397.31p. No reason has been given for reducing the reserve price.

¶25

For all the above reasons, the auction dated 26.08.2025 is hereby set aside. Bank is directed to refund the whole of the money deposited by the auction purchaser with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit, till the date of payment. Bank would also pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser would return all the documents which have been given by the Bank to him. The Bank would also cancel the sale certificate. In case, any sale-deed has been registered, the Bank would also get the same cancelled. Apart from this, Bank would also pay the stamp charges to the auction purchaser.

¶26

In view of the above, the present SA is allowed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶27

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.

¶28

Pronounced in open court Manoj/Dated: 23.01.2026

¶29

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

¶30

Kiranjeet Kaur v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiranjeet Kaur v. Uco 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

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/s Shitla Cement

Bank of India versus Sh Balwinder Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

Nice Software Solutions Private Limited through Power of Attorney Ashwin Arun Kulkarni versus Bank of Maharashtra

State Bank of India versus Kulwinder Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Dar Timber Co.