Dismissed

Baljit Singh v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT17 Feb 2026SA/370/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

applicant challenged the possession taken by the bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal dismissed the application, noting proof of CERSAI registration and service of notices via postal receipts. Applicant is in possession due to alleged trespass.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application under Section 17 SARFAESI Act dismissed; no order on possession dispute in impugned order.

Baljit Singh versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

SA/370/2025 BALJIT SINGH Vs AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED

¶3

17.02.2026 Item No.7

¶4

Present: Mr. H.P. Singh, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. K.P.S. Dhillon, Counsel for respondent bank.

¶5

Baljit 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 Authorized Officer, AU Small Finance Bank Limited (Respondent).

¶6

Applicant is the proprietor of Sandhu Resorts, who availed a Term loan of Rs.49.00 lacs in the year 2019. Again in the year 2021, he had raised a loan of Rs.39.80 lacs. Apart from this, he was sanctioned Top-Up loan of Rs.2.00 lacs in the year 2021. The account become irregular. Counsel for the applicant states that applicant had paid Rs.18.00 Lacs in cash to the employees of the bank namely Sandeep, Varun Gupta, Mukesh and Puneet Mahajan. However, they were not accounted for. On 08.01.2025, the respondent declared the account NPA. On 13.01.2025, respondent issued the notice under Section 13(2) in respect of the loan account of Rs.39.80 lacs and again on 14.01.2025 issued the notice under Section 13(2) in respect of the loan account of Rs.49.00 lacs and Rs.2.00 lacs. The payments were not made. On 16.04.2025, respondent issued two notices under Section 13(4). On 09.07.2025, the respondent obtained the order under Section 14. On 12.12.2025, respondent took the possession. On 10.12.2025, applicant filed the present SA.

¶7

Respondent has filed reply to the SA.

¶8

I have heard Mr. H.P. Singh, counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P.S. Dhillon, counsel for respondent bank.

¶9

Mr. H.P. Singh, raised objection that there is no CERSAI Registration and no notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) was served upon the applicant. He states that applicant is in possession of the property. Accordingly, the SARFAESI action be set aside.

¶10

Per contra, Mr. Dhillon, has placed on the record CERSAI report (Annexure R-1). He states that respondent had duly served the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) upon the applicant. He has produced on the record postal receipts and acknowledgments (Annexure R-2 to R- 5). He further argued that on 12.12.2025, respondent had taken the possession. However, applicant had trespassed into the property and a complaint in this regard was filed with the police (Annexure R-9).

¶11

Respondent has produced on the record CERSAI report (Annexure R-1) as well as postal receipts and acknowledgments (Annexure R-2 to R-5). Accordingly, there is no merit in the SA and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶12

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶13

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

¶14

PANKAJ

Baljit Singh v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Singh v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Bhagwati Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ram Krishan

Hdfc Bank versus Gurlal Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Shreyam Enterprise

Hasna Bewa versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of India versus Shri Raman Kumar Alias Raman