Allowed

Arun Kumar Gupta v. Canara Bank

DRT5 Jan 2026SA/351/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal directed the respondent bank to refund the auction deposit of Rs. 1.47 crore to the applicant auction purchaser along with interest and costs, and imposed a penalty on the bank for causing a dent in the collateral-free recovery system.

What did the court decide?

Return of auction deposit Rs. 1.47 crore with 12% interest and Rs. 5 lacs cost; penalty deposit of Rs. 2.00 lacs in Legal Services Authority.

Arun Kumar Gupta versus Canara Bank — Bail and Remand | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

Date of order or Order with signature of court Office action
proceeding taken with
date
S.A. No.351/2023
05.01 .2026 The Judgment is signed and
pronounced on separate sheets. Separately
attached in 03 sheets.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s
website.
(Dictated)
F
(Pravas Ku, . singh)
Presiding ONicer
(Mugish)

¶3

¶4

S.A. No. 351 of 2023

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW

¶6

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶7

Securitization Application No.351 of 2023

¶8

Dated 05.01.2026

¶9

Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Sri Satish Kumar Gupta, RZ-B/121 A, Street – No.6, Rajnagar I, Palam Colony, Ganga Chowk, Raj Nagar Part 2, South West Delhi – 1 1007.

¶10

––-- Applicant

¶11

Verusus

¶12

A.O. Canara Bank Asset Recovery Management – II Branch, A-27, First Floor, Hauzkhas, New – Delhi – 1 10016.

¶13

M/s Sushila Taxfab Private Limited, ––-- Respondents Office situated at D-404, Jeevan Ashray, Sector-62, Noida, U.P. Through its Director Ann Kumar Tanwar.

¶14

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant (a/p): Mr. S. M. Furquan, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank: Mr. Alok Saxena, Advocate.

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The present Securitization Application has been filed by the Applicants under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act).

¶17

a) This Securitization Application has been broudrt by the applicant for setting aside the OTS dated 19.01.2023 entered between the respondent bark and the borrowers9 to the extent

¶18

¶19

S. No.351 of 2023

¶20

it relates to the property purchased by the present applicant (auction purchaser).

¶21

b) To direct the respondent bank to issue the sale certificate in favour of the present applicant (auction purchaser).

¶22

c) To direct the respondent bank to handover the peaceful vacant physical possession of the property in question to the present applicant (auction purchaser)

¶23

d) To direct the respondent bank to handover the original title deeds of the property in question purchased by the present applicant (auction purchaser)

¶24

By way of supplementary affidavit, it is stated that the applicant is not interested in the property and pressing a prayer to a limited extent (to direct the respondent bank to refund the deposited auction amount along with interest @20% per annum with monthly rest) and a cost of Rs.5.00 laos to the present applicant towards the legal expenses incurred and mental agony given to the present applicant and he is not pressing any other relief

¶25

It is stated that SA No.319 of 2021 was disposed of by this Tribunal on 25.04.2023 stating therein that the applicant of the SA that the matter is settled between the parties and nothing remains for adjudication. It is case of the auction purchaser (present applicant) that in pursuance of sale notice dated 07.03.2022, he has purchased the residential plot and entire sale amount to the tune of Rs. 1,47,20,000/- was deposited by him.

¶26

In the meantime, the respondent bank entered into an OTS proposal with the borrower and the SA No.329 of 2021 was disposed of without hearing him.

¶27

It is stated that the applicant is not pressing the other prayers made in the SA.

¶28

Any written objection has not been filed by the bank though the learned counsel for the bank was present at the time of final argument.

¶29

¶30

S. No.351 of 2023

¶31

Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank has got limited objection to the payment of interest @20% for a cost in the submissions.

¶32

Respondent bank did not file any written objection perhaps deliberately.

¶33

In view of the submissions, it is ordered.

¶34

10' TYPg beAU e_HPER

¶35

(AyThe respondent bank is directed to return bid amount deposited by the applicant (auction purchaser) Rs.1,47,20,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Seven Laos Twenty Thousand Only) with interest @12% per annum with monthly rest with a cost of Rs.5.00 lacs within 15 days of this order. Cost / compensation the interest will be paid pendent-lite and future interest and it will be calculated frorTI the date of deposit of the amount by the applicant.

¶36

(B)Respondent bank is further directed to deposit Rs.2.00 laos by way of cost in the U.P. State Legal Services Authority Cost Fund, since a dent has been caused in the transparent manner in the proceeding of the respondent bank and to the system at large.

¶37

¶38

All the other pending IAs are also disposed of.

¶39

File be consigned to record room.

¶40

\ t\J\ ( [Pravas Kun gh] Presiding 6acer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.

¶41

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 05th Day of January, 2026.

¶42

[Pravas Kumar ATlgll] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.

¶43

(Mugish)

Arun Kumar Gupta v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Gupta v. Canara 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

Surendra Singh Bhati versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

M S Maa Vaishno Traders versus Aryavart Bank

M S Ayam Decorators versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus Mr Ajay Kumar

M s ansh Rice Mill and others versus Indian Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr Nikhil Mohan Jain