Allowed

Jitendra Singh v. Punjab National Bank

DRT28 Jan 2026SA/37/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application to quash a SARFAESI action initiated by Punjab National Bank. The court held that the bank failed to prove service of the demand and possession notices due to unverified postal receipts and lack of required newspaper publication.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI action and measures taken against the applicants including the auction sale notice dated 01.01.2025 are quashed.

Jitendra Singh versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA 37 of 2025 IJI

DRT, PATN A

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer :Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA– 37 of 2025

¶7

1 Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Suryadev Singh R/o – Village Wasri, P.0. Dhibra, Block+P.S. – Dev, District – Aurangabad. (Borrower).

¶8

Smt. Archana Devi, W/o Jitendra Singh, R/o – Village Wasri, P.0. Dhibra, Block+P.S. – Dev, District – Aurangabad. (Guarantor).

¶9

........Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, SASTRA, Aurangabad, Circle Office. 2-d Floor, old GT Road. Aurangabad.

¶12

2 The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle SASTRA, Aurangabad, Circle Office, 2nd Floor, old GT Road, Aurangabad.

¶13

3 The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Aurangabad Old GT Road, Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶14

-–respondents

¶15

Present :

¶16

For the AppLicants Sh. Anjani Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Sh. Manish Kishore. Advocate

¶17

Dated: 28.01.2026

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Present application has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESI action taken against the properties of applicant alongwith e– auction notice dated 01.01.2025.

¶20

The brief fact of the case is that the applicants availed Housing Loan facility to the tune of Rs.21.50 Lacs from the respondent bank. To secure the loan facility, the applicant mortgaged the property in question in favour of the respondent bank. Due to default in repayment of dues of the bank, the account was classified as NPA on 30,07.2024. Subsequently. the

h'~

SA 37 of 2025 IJI

DRT, PATN A

respondent bank initiated SARFAESI action against the borrower by issuing Demand Notice dated 24.09.2024 u/s 13(2) of the act calling upon the borrower to make the payment of Rs.18,06,311/-. Thereafter, the respondent took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 03.12.2024 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the property was put on auction sale by issuing auction sale notice dated 01.01.2025 fixing the date of auction sale on 07.02.2025. Aggrieved from the auction sale notice, the present SA has been filed by the applicants.

¶26

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicant that due to kidnapping of daughter of applicants, the loan account could not be maintained properly, resulting it was declared as NPA. However, after declaration of account as NPA, the applicants deposited Rs.15,000/- with the Bank and requested to supply the statement of account and also to consider the pathetic condition of applicants while charging interest but the respondent neither supplied the statement of account nor replied to the request. It is further submitted that without serving either demand notice or possession notice, the respondent bank put the property in question on auction sale. The Possession Notice was neither affixed nor published in two leading newspapers. The sale notice was also not served to the applicants however, the sale notice was pasted on secured assets but the same was not visible. At the time of sanctioning the loan, the value of the property was assessed as Rs.54 lacs while the property was put on auction sale with the reserve price of Rs.45,34,750/-. At present market value of the property is more than worth Rs.90 lacs.

¶27

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that the borrower after availing the loan facilities failed and neglected to repay the amount due under facility, hence, the accounts was classified as NPA on 30.07.2024. In order to recover outstanding dues, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 24.09.2024. The demand notice was served to the applicants through post. Even after service of demand notice, the applicant failed to repay the dues of the bank, hence the bank took

vq\

SA 37 of 2025 IJI

DRT, PATN A

possession of the secured asset by issuing possession notice dated 03.12.2024 u/s 13(4) of the act. The Possession Notice was pasted on secured assets and subsequently served to the applicants through post on 06.12.2024. The possession notice was also published in ''Dainik Bhasker" and “Times of India". Thereafter, valuation of the property was obtained by the respondent bank from its registered valuer and the property was put on auction sale by issuing auction sale notice dated 01.01.2025 fixing the date of auction sale on 07.02.2025. The auction sale notice was duly served to the applicants through post on 03.01.2025. Further, the sale notice was affixed on the secured asset and published in “Hindustan" and "Hindustan Times" on 04.01.2025. However. the sale could not take place on 07.02.2025 due to intervention of this Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2025

¶33

1 have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶34

It has been alleged that neither the demand notice nor the possession notice nor the sale notice was served to the 'applicants. The possession notice was not affixed on the secured asset. It is also alleged that neither the possession notice nor the sale notice was published in newspapers. The property was put on auction for a very low price

¶35

On perusal of records it appears that after declaration of account as NPA, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI action against borrower and guarantor by issuing demand notice dated 24.09.2024 and the same was sent to the applicant through post but from perusal of postal receipt the date of dispatch is not legible. Neither the tracking report has been annexed to prove the service of demand notice despite specific allegation of non service of demand notice. The respondent bank took symbolic possession of the property by issuing possession notice dated 03.12.2024. The possession notice sent to the applicants through post on 06.12.2024 as appears from the annexure – R/5, page 17–18 of counter affidavit. To prove the delivery of possession notice, the respondent bank annexed a tracking report of postal service which indicates that the post was

%,,

SA 37 of 2025 IJI

DRT, PATN A

delivered to the applicant no.1 on 07.12.2026. So far as the tracking report annexed to prove the delivery of possession notice to the applicant no.2 as annexure R/6, page 20 is concerned, it appears that the post was delivered to "sender". Hence, it remains unserved. To prove the affixation of possession notice, the respondent bank annexed the copy of affixation as annexure – R/4, page 16 but the same does not indicate the affixation of possession notice. The same indicates "AAM- S00CHNA'’ meaning thereby information for the general public. However, the possession notice was published in “Dainik Bhaskar" and “Times of India” on 07.12.2024.

¶41

So far as the allegation regarding low valuation of the property and non service of sale notice is concerned. since the auction sale could not take place, hence, the discussion on this point becomes infructuous at this stage.

¶42

In view of the above discussion as the service of demand notice and possession notice could not be proved against the applicants, the present application succeeds.

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The application SA 37 of 2025, is Allowed with costs. The SARFAESI Action in question and measures taken against the applicants are hereby quashed.

¶45

,(” [KauihalendraYadav]

¶46

Presiding Officer

¶47

Debts Recovery Tribunal. Patna

¶48

Judgment signed, sealed. dated and pronounced in the open court on this 28TH Day of January, 2026

¶49

¶50

[KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer

¶51

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Jitendra Singh v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh v. Punjab National 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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S First Engineer

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ram Sidhari

Icici Bank Limited versus Shaikh Ayub

Icici Bank Limited versus Sucha Singh

Canara Bank versus Manga Singh Aulakh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Abdul Salam Parry and Co.