Dismissed

Kailashpati Tiwari Alias Kailasha v. Union Bank of India

DRT13 Jan 2026SA/386/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application by borrowers to set aside an auction and possesion notice under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found that the bank had fully complied with statutory notice requirements and service rules. Upholding the District Magistrate's order, the Court held no flaw existed in the sale process.

What did the court decide?

: Application dismissed as devoid of merit; all pending interim applications also disposed of.

Kailashpati Tiwari Alias Kailasha versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

Date of order or Froceedin!	Order withsignatureofcourt	Officeaction takenwithdate
S.A.No.386/2024 13.01.2026	Itis reported by NIC of theOffice that in SA No.386/2024, onlyfive pages have beenuploadedoutofsix pages mentioned in the judgment and page number five was found to be missing when tracked by NIC. The record was placedand perused byme. I find that page number five was rnlSSlrIg. Needless to say thatjudgment remained in computer hardisk of PS which was taken from the harddisk and re-printed alongwith page number five. NIC is directed to uploadthe entirepages afresh. (Dictated) { (Pravas Kumar Singh) Presiding Officer (Veeresh)

S.A. No.386 of 2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL9 LUCKNOW

¶7

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶8

Securitization Application No.386 of 2024

¶9

Dated: 12.9.2025

¶10

Kailashpati Tiwari alias Kailasha & Anr. . . . . . . . . . . . . Applicants Versus Union Bank of India . . . . . . ..Respondents

¶11

Ld. Counsel for the applicant: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the respondent-bank: Mr. G.S. Mishra, Advocate

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The present securitization Application has been filed by the applicant on 31.5.2024 under section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act) to quash auction notice dated 13.5.2024 and auction scheduled on 29.5.2024 and further to quash demand notice and possession notIce.

¶14

Brief facts of the case:- admittedly the applicant had availed loan facility from the respondent-bank and tried to maintain financial with the respondent-bank. It is alleged that respondent-bank declared loan account as NPA in arbitrary manner. It is submitted that applicant came to regarding securitization proceeding from the auction notice. Further case being that respondent-bank was aware that applicant is in jail and notices were not properly served and clear 15 days notice was not given to the applicant at the time of sale (since, it was subsequent sale). It is alleged that the respondent-bank has not complied the

¶15

¶16

S.A.No.386 of 2024

¶17

statutory provisions under Rule 8(5), 8(6), 8(7) and 9(1) of the Act

¶18

A detail written objection has been filed on behalf of the respondent-bank. It is submitted that this SA has been brought by Kailash Tiwari alias Kailasha and Neelam Tripathi, sister-inlaw of the applicant no.1.It is submitted that respondent-bank has made every compliances and challenge to demand notice and possession notice is highly time barred. It is further pointed out that with respect to same secured assets, one SA No.69/2021 was dismissed by this Tribunal on 18.02.2021 and SA No.134/2023 has been dismissed as withdrawn, accordingly, this is third SA. It is submitted that the respondent-bank in compliance of the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in SA No.69/2021 had issued a fresh notice to the borrower, guarantor, as well as legal heirs of late Jagat Narayan Tiwari, Vikas Tiwari and Kailasha and other. It is stated that applicant has filed Pariwar Register before this Tribunal and legal heirs as per Pariwar Register were arrayed at the time of serving notice. It is further stated that applicant has challenged sale notice dated 13.5.2024, however, sale notice is 10.5.2024. It is further stated that prior sale was scheduled on 30.4.2024 in pursuance of clear 30 days notice dated 21.3.2024, but, no bidder participated, hence, subsequent sale was made after giving 15 days notice. It is pointed out that vide Annexure No.R-7, pages 206 to 216, valuation report has been filed. It is argued that in the present SA, the date of demand notice and possession notice has not been mentioned, though, the applicants were quite aware as it was mentioned in SA No.134/2023. 1t is pointed out that in lieu of sale notice dated 13.5.2024, sale was made on 29.5.2024 and prior to filing of the said SA, the respondent-bank had received entire bid amount from the auction purchaser Mr. Virendra Vikram Pratap Sin W. It is argued that since without anaying auction purchase, any relief cannot be given to the applicant and fbrther that any flaw in the

¶19

¶20

S.A.No.386 of 2024

¶21

sale notice has not been challenged. It is submitted that secured assets was mortgage by Vikas Tiwari.

¶22

1 have considered rival submission.

¶23

The main contention of the applicant being that notices under Section 13(2) & 13(4)( were not served upon the applicant and statutory compliances under Rule 8(5), 8(6), 8(7) have not been made by the respondent-bank before putting the secured asset on e-auctIon.

¶24

The respondent-bank has shown Annexure No.R-2 pages 25 to 156 for bringing on record the copy of SA No.69/2021 and the coy of Pariwar Register dated 17.02.202 1 alongwith orders passed in the case. The demand notice dated 05.10.2023 under Section 13(2) has been brought as Annexure- No.R-3 of the counter affidavit. It is submitted that notice under Section 13(2) was duly served upon the applicant and in proof of service for demand notice, postal receipt and tracking report has been filed. It is pointed out that since demand notice was returned bank as unserved upon the guarantor Mr. Harishanker Tiwari and Mr. Jain Kishan Gupta, it was affixed on 21.10.2023 and published in two leading newspaper namely “Jansatta” and “Indian Express” and in proofthereofAnnexure No.R-4 has been shown.

¶25

It is further stated that possession notice was served on 28.12.2023, it was duly published in daily newspaper9 photograph of affixation and copy of newspaper publication have been filed as Annexure No.R-5.

¶26

As far as sale is concerned, it is stated that sale notice dated 10.5.2024 was properly served through speed post and published in two daily newspaper and affixed on secured assets, in proof thereof, Annexure No.R-6 has been filed. It is submitted that son of applicant no.1 has filed SA No.134/20219 and challenged the validity of e-auction dated 29.5.2024 along with interim relief

¶27

¶28

S.A.No.386 of 2024

¶29

application. It is submitted that none of the applicants informed the respondent_bank regarding juridical custody of applicant no. I

¶30

In view of above submission, I find that all the statutory compliances have been made by the respondent-bank including service of notices under Section 13(2) & 13(4) and any Haw in the sale notice has not been made. It is stated in the SA that applicant has not made any averments regarding any flaw in proceeding of sale.

¶31

10.1 am of view that any relief to the applicant hinges around cancellation of sale made in favour of auction purchaser and after cancellation of sale certificate, the Hon’ble Apex Court had narrowed down the compass in Ba6la Contempt case.

¶32

1 have considered the leading judgment known as judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court known as CELIR LLP Vs. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna & ors.

¶33

''The Hon’bte Apex Court has framed a question and laid down ratio, as to the circumstances, when a sale of property by auction or other means under SARFAESI Act may be set aside after its confIrmation. Their Lordships have examined a series of judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has been said that purpose of an open auction is to get the most enumerative price and it is a duty of the Court to keep openness of the auction so that intending bidder would be free to participate and offer higher value. It is said that once the sale has been con$rmed, it cannot be set aside unless fundamental procedural error occurred or sale certifIcate has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. After discussions of several other judgments their Lordship has propounded the ratio in para 218 of the judgment.”

¶34

" Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already confirmed or concluded ought not to be set-aside or interfered with lightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule which does not have any fundamental procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such proceeding. In such cases, courts in particular should be

¶35

S.A.No.386 of 2024

¶36

mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confIrmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity.”

¶37

Before departing from judgment, I find that one IA No.2706/2025 field by the applicant for amendment in the SA regarding relief to set aside/quash notice dated 25.6.2025 in order dated 25.4.2025. 1 find that it is order dated 25.4.2025 passed under Section 14 of the Act and notice dated 25.6.2025 issued by Additional City Magistrate to take possession of the secured asset. In the interest of justice, amendment is taken on record.

¶38

As far as order under Section 14 of the Act is concerned, any particular fact has not been pleaded regarding any deficiency in the order.

¶39

14.7/ze Hon’bte Apex Court in the leading case known as Batkrislma Rama Tarte Through I,Rs vs. Phoenix ARC Private Limited another SLP Petition No.16013 of 2022 has observed:

¶40

'Immediately, after receipt of application is received9 the CMM/DM is expected to pass an order after verification of compliance of all formalities by the secured creditor and after being satisPed in that regard, to take possession of the secured assets. It is specifically observed that any claiming adjudicating that power exercised under Section 14 of the Act are ministerial step and does not involve am adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrower against the secured creditor taking possession of secured assets.”

¶41

In that view of the matter once all the requirements under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with9 it is the dutY cast upon the DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining

S.A.No.:

the possession as well as the documents related to tt ed assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to is //submitted that at any stage, the District Magistrate is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party.

¶46

16.In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the SA, accordingly, the present SA is dismissed being devoid of merit. All the other pending IAs are also disposed of. Let the file be consigned to record room.

¶47

(Dictat’ ' . b Fb„ .

¶48

(Pravas Kun_„r blngh) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow

¶49

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 12th Day of September, 2025 .

¶50

RHS\h (Pravas Kumar Singh) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow

¶51

(Veeresh)

Kailashpati Tiwari Alias Kailasha v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailashpati Tiwari Alias Kailasha v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus M/S Vinod Kumar Thekedar

Vandana Singh versus Indian Bank

Anil Kumar Gupta versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited

Tahasin Bano versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

M S Satyam Enterprises versus Punjab National Bank

Sadaf Khanam versus Bank of Baroda