Dismissed

Ms Om Vastralay and others v. Punjab National Bank

DRT28 Jan 2026SA/376/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicants challenged the bank’s SARFAESI action, specifically the auction and possession of mortgaged properties. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application, holding it was time-barred as no sufficient cause was explained for the delay in filing.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed with costs, and pending interim applications were disposed of.

Ms Om Vastralay and others versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA 376 of 2023 lil

DRT, PATN A

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer :Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 376 of 2023

¶7

Ms 0M Vastralay, Proprietor Bhupendra Kumar Patel, Son of Ramji Patel, resident of Dhabwa word number no.9. PS adapur, District East champaran, pin code – 845301. (Borrower Firm).

¶8

Bhupendra Kumar Patel, Son of Ramji Patel, Proprietor of Om Vastralay, resident of Dhabwa word number no.9, PS adapur, District East champaran, pin code – 845301. (Borrower).

¶9

.........Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Punjab National Bank, through the zonal manager, R Block, 2-d Floor, Near Chankya Hotel, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna. Bihar 800001.

¶12

Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Secured Creditor, Sastar Chmparan Motihari.

¶13

Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Recovery Department, Mandal Office, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶14

4 Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, (belwa branch) Aadapur P.S. Aadapur, District – east champaran.

¶15

The CoILector -cum-District Magistrate, east champaran. District,– east champaran, Motihari.

¶16

Sohan Singh, male, aged about 45 years, son of Kamal Singh, resident of village Kanuniya, Post Bakhtaura, P.S Adapur, District – East Champaran (845301).

¶17

--respondents

¶18

Present :

¶19

For the Applicants : Sh. Nand Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Dr. Binod Bihari Sinha, Advocate

SA 376 of 2023 IJI

DRT. PATN A

Dated: 28.01.2026

JUDGMENT

Present application has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESI action taken against the properties of applicant alongwith e-auction notice dated 24.05.2023.

¶26

During pendency of the SA, the applicant filed Limitation Petition by way of tA 728/2023 for condonation of delay.

¶27

The brief fact of the case is that the applicants avaited Credit facility to the tune of Rs.9.95 12 Lacs and Term Loan facility to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs from the respondent bank. To secure the loan facility, the applicant mortgaged his properties in favour of the respondent bank. Due to default in repayment of dues of the bank, the accounts were classified as NPA on 31.03.2021. Subsequently, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI action against the borrower by issuing Demand Notice dated 08.09.2021 u/s 13(2) of the act calling upon the borrower to make the payment of Rs.13,28,788.83. Thereafter, the respondent took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 18.11.2021 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the respondent bank approached the District Magistrate for taking physical possession of the property. In the meantime the respondent bank put the property on auction sale by issuing auction sale notice dated 24.05.2023 fixing the date of auction sale on 08.06.2023. Aggrieved from the action of auction sale and physical possession of the property, the present SA has been filed by the applicants.

¶28

Dn the point of limitation it is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicant that against the auction sale of the property the applicant had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Patna vide CWJC No.9923 of 2023 which was disposed of on 07.08.2023. The applicant came to know about the order of Hon’ble High Court on 18.08.2023

$„

DRT, PATN A

SA 376 of 2023 [JI

accordingly, present SA has been filed within limitation period. However, if any delay has occurred, the same may be condoned,

¶34

It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicant that on instruction of bank officials, the applicant had deposited Rs.60,000/in the loan account after the NPA but the respondent bank didn’t regularize the account. Neither the Possession Notice issued under section 13(4) of the act nor the sale notice has been served upon the applicants. The Possession Notice was neither affixed nor published in two leading newspapers. It is further submitted that without obtaining the valuation of the property, the respondent bank published the auction sale notice on 24.05.2023 fixing the date of auction sale on 08.06.2023. The sale notice was served to the applicant on 24.06.2023 i.e. after the auction sale of the property. Before putting the property on auction sale, 15 days sale notice was not served to the applicants. The property was auctioned for only Rs.19,16.200/- while the value of the property is more than Rs.80 lacs. The physical possession of the property was taken without following the due process of law.

¶35

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that the present application is hopelessly time barred by the law of limitation. It is further submitted that the borrower after availing the loan facilities failed and neglected to repay the amount due under the facility, hence. the accounts were classified as NPA on 31.03.2021. In order to recover outstanding dues, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower with service of demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 08.09.2021. Even after service of demand notice. the applicant failed to repay the dues of the bank, hence the bank took possession of the secured asset by issuing possession notice dated 18.11.2021 u/s 13(4) of the act. The Possession Notice was received by the borrower, The Possession Notice was also affixed on secured

SA 376 of 2023 IJI

DRT, PATN A

assets and also got published in “Hindustan" and “Hindustan Times on 20.11.2021. The property was also registered with Central Registry vide Assets tD No. 200034484744. Thereafter, the valuation of property has been obtained by the respondent bank from its registered valuer and the property has been put on auction sale by issuing auction sale notices on various dates but sale could not be completed due to want of bidder. Lastly the property was auctioned on 08.06.2023 against the auction sale notice dated 19.05.2023. The sale notice dated 19.05.2023 was duly served to the applicant through registered post on and published in ''Prabhat Khabar" and "Times of India" on 25.05.2023. Thereafter, the respondent bank moved before the District Magistrate for physical possession of the property. AccordingLy, the District Magistrate passed an order vide memo no. 3104 dated 22.05.2023.

¶40

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

¶41

Before entering into controversy let us examine whether the present application was filed within the period of limitation or it is beyond the limitation that requires any kind of condonation of delay as raised by the respondent bank.

¶42

The applicant stated that after getting knowledge, approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed CWJC No. 9923/2023 on 12.06.2023 and the same was disposed of on 07.08.2023 and present SA has been filed on 26.09.2023. This is beyond 45 days.

¶43

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basawaraj&Anr. Versus The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [2013] 14 SCC 811 has held as under–“The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation. the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the “sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party VJ,,\

SA 376 of 2023 IJI

DRT. PATN A

is found to be negligent. or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposIng any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any conditIon whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it amounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature ".

¶48

But on perusal of S. application as well as limItation no suFficient cause has been explained. A very vague statement has been given that the applicant came to know about the order of Hon'ble High Court on 18.08.2023 whereas on perusal of said order it appears that Id. Counsel of the applicant was very much present on that date. in the above circumstances it is hard to believe that the applicant tIed no knowledge of the action of the respondent banl(.

¶49

On perusal of records it appear-s that the respondent bank issued demand notice dated 08.09.2021 against the applicant and the same was sent to the applicant through post on 09.09.2021 as evident from the postal receipt annexed with counter affidavit as annexure – A, page 14 & 16. However, the service of demand notice has riot been disptlted by the applicant. Thereafter, the respondent bank took symbolic possession of the property by issuing possession notice dated 18.11.2021. The possessiorl notice received -by the applicant by appending his signature over the copy of possession notice as appears from the annexure – B, page 18 of counter affidavit. The possession notice was affixed on the conspicuous part of the

DRT, PATN A

SA 376 of 2023 IJI

mortgaged property as appears from the annexure – B, page 18. To prove the publication of possession notice the respondent bank annexed the copy of publication as annexure –C. page 19-22 which shows that the possession notice was published in “Hindustan" and Hindustan Times" on 20.11.2021. The possession notice was also affixed on secured assets as per annexure –D, page 23 of counter affidavit filed by respondent bank.

¶54

Thereafter. the respondent bank put the property on auction sale vide sale notice dated 19.05.2023 fixing the date of auction sale on 08.06.2023. To prove the service of sale notice dated 19.05.2023, the respondent bank annexed the copy of tracking report with counter affidavit as annexure F, page 28 but failed to file any postal receipt vide which it can be ascertained. However, the tracking report indicates that the notice was delivered to ''bhupendar kr om vastralay sh chauk adp( Addressee)" on 22.05.2023. The sale notice was also published on 25.05.2023 in ''Prabhat Khabar" and “ The Times of India

¶55

So far as proof of affixation of sale notice is concerned respondent bank the respondent bank failed to file the same. Apart from the above, the respondent bank failed to file the valuation report as the applicant has specifically alleged that the property has been sold at a very low price.

¶56

The respondent bank also did not disclose the name and address of the auction purchaser. As a result thereof the applicant could not implead the auction purchaser as a party.

¶57

In view of the above discussion. the applicant could not prove that reasonable ground of delay in filing this application within the limitation period. The service of demand notice, possession notice and the sale notice is proved. Despite some irregularities as mentioned above, no relief can be granted to the applicant as the application has not been filed within the limitation period. The >D) \ \

SA 376 of 2023 [JI

DRT. PATN A

applicant could not prove reasonable ground to cone the delay. As such the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶62

ORDER

¶63

The application SA 376 of 2023, is dismissed with costs. Pending IA if any, also stands disposed off

¶64