Allowed

Ashu Nagewala v. Union Bank of India

DRT6 Mar 2026SA/398/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held a Section 13(2) notice defective due to inclusion of non-party liable persons and failure to bifurcate principal and interest liability. The proceedings were set aside, costs levied on the bank, and no expenses debited from the applicant's account.

What did the court decide?

Notice under Section 13(2) set aside, entire proceedings set aside, court fee levied on bank, no expenses debited from applicant.

Ashu Nagewala versus Union Bank of India — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 56

¶3

Case No.SA/398/2025

¶4

ASHU NAGEWALA Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA

¶5

Date: 06.03.2026. Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶6

Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant

¶7

Shri Mohit Choudhary, Counsel along with Authorised Officer for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶8

In this matter, an explanation of the Authorized Officer of the Bank was called in respect of the issues raised by the applicant, regarding the statement of account on payment of Rs. 5.00 Lac. She submits that since the account was NPA upon payment of Rs. 5.00 Lac, subsequent entries have been generated by the computer itself due to some technical error, the interest had not run in the account, being an NPA account.

¶9

Authorized Officer of the Bank stands discharged. So far as notice under Section 13(2) dated 18.01.2025 is concerned. It is issued to M/s Shakuntalam through proprietor Mr. Aman Nagewala along with Mr. Ashu Nagewala and Mrs. Shakuntala Nagewala. The bare perusal of the notice shows that the account was classified as NPA on 29.04.2021 after which first notice dated 04.08.2021 was issued. One of the objections of the applicant is a car loan has been included in this notice, whereas the car loan stands in the joint name of Mr. Aman Nagewala and Mr. Akshay Nagewala.

¶10

Mr. Akshay Nagewala is not a party to this notice under Section 13(2), however it is observed that the addressee no. 2 and 3 have never taken a car loan nor have given any guarantee for the same, but they have added as a guarantor and mortgagor in respect of car loan also.

¶11

The property stands in the name of addressee number 3, Mrs. Shakuntala Nagewala, then how addressee number 2, Mr. Ashu Nagewala becomes mortgagor. The Tribunal raises the query in respect of the compliance of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the matter of Mithilanchal Industries because principal liability has not been given only Outstanding amount as

¶12

¶13

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶14

on 31.12.2024 is reflected in the notice and in the column 2 it is written unapplied interest w.e.f. ‘-----‘ till 31.12.2024.

¶15

Counsel for the respondent submits that he is relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the L & T matter to say that these minor things should not vitiate the proceedings. This is not a minor mistake. Bifurcation of liability as per securitization Act has to be given, he is trying to mislead the Tribunal as in judgment where everything was correct only the letter head on which notice issued were of some subsidiary which were being used, here various liabilities are combined of person who are hnot even party.

¶16

Therefore submissions the notice being issued have no bifurcated interest portion and principal liability which has not been clarified, even after objections there are defects in the notice.

¶17

Counsel for the respondent submits that there was an amendment in the earlier notice, but nothing of such sort has been given in this notice.

¶18

In view of the observations made above, the notice issued under Section 13(2) is a defective notice and cannot be implemented, therefore the same stands set aside, entire proceedings stands set aside. The court fee which has been spent by the applicant shall be levied on the bank and such amount shall be credited in the borrowers account and no expenses shall be debited in the account of applicant from 2021 till date.

¶19

Accordingly, SA stands disposed of, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.

¶20

File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶21

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶22

Ashu Nagewala v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashu Nagewala 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

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Shri Balaji Art and Craft

Rajasthan Gramin Bank versus Amar Singh

Smfg India Credit Co. Ltd. versus Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Suresh Chandra Sharma versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

Axis Bank versus Ranbanka Jodha Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Gajanand Medical Agency versus Hdfc Bank