Allowed

MD Rafiqul Islam and Anr. v. Central Bank of India

DRT28 Jan 2026SA/402/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application to quash SARFAESI actions taken by the Central Bank of India. The court held that the bank failed to prove compliance with Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act, specifically noting procedural defects in the demand and possession notices.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed with costs and the measures taken for the SARFAESI action under challenge were set aside.

MD Rafiqul Islam and Anr. versus Central Bank of India — Dowry and Cruelty | DRT (2026)

DRT, PATN A

SA 402 of 2022 IJI

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer :Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 402 of 2022

¶7

1 Md. Rafiqul Islam, S/o – Abdul Hamim, Mohiuddinpur, P.0. Ghoramara, District – Kishanganj, 855107.

¶8

FuLara Begum, W/o – Md. Rafiqul Islam, Mohiuddinpur, P.0. Ghoramara, District – Kishanganj, 855107.

¶9

.Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 The Authorized Officer, Central Bank of India, Kishanganj Branch, Sadar Hospital Road, Kishanganj, Bihar 885107.

¶12

2 The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Batta Bazar, Purnia 854 301

¶13

--respondents

¶14

Present :

¶15

For the Applicants : Sh. Alok Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Sh. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate

¶16

Dated: 28.01.2026

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Present application has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESI action taken against the properties of applicant alongwith the possession notice as well as action initiated by the bank for physical possession of the property.

¶19

The brief fact of the case is that the applicants availed Housing Loan facility to the tune of Rs. 14 lacs and Rs.30 lacs from the respondent bank and mortgaged the property towards security of the loan. Due to default in repayment of dues of the bank, the accounts were

¶20

****

SA 402 of 2022 [JI

DRT, PATN A

classified as NPA. In order to recover outstanding dues the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower & guarantor with service of demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 03.07.2017 of the act calling upon the borrower to make the payment of Rs.30.05,999/–. Thereafter, the respondent took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 05.05.2022 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the respondent bank moved before the District Magistrate for assistance towards physical possession of property. Accordingly, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 08.12.2022. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued a letter dated 14.12.2022 calling upon the applicants to deliver the possession of the property on or after 22.12.2022. Aggrieved from the letter dated 14.12.2022 issued by the bank, present SA has been filed by the applicants.

¶25

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicant that the Demand Notice dated 03.07.2017 issued by the bank was delivered to the applicants on 12.09.2017 therefore, the applicants could not file its representation as it was delivered after expiry of 60 days from the date of its issuance. In the said demand notice neither the date of NPA nor the rate of interest has been disclosed by the bank. No details of the property have been given while there is a G+2 building standing on the plot. Further, the respondent bank issued a Possession Notice dated 10.02.2021 without serving to the applicants. Surprisingly, during pendency of abovesaid possession notice, the respondent bank issued another Possession Notice dated 05.05.2022 without withdrawing earlier possession notice. Moreover, boundaries of the property in question mentioned in possession notice dated 05.05.2022 are not identical with the possession notice dated 10.02.2021. It is further submitted that the applicant has already paid Rs. 26 lacs including Rs. 2 lacs demanded by the bank being the difference amount in calculation of the 25% of notice amount.

\An

SA 402 of 2022 [JI

DRT, PATN A

On the contrary. Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that after availing the loan facilities the borrower failed and neglected to repay the amount due under facilities. hence. the accounts were classified as NPA on 03.07.2017. Subsequently, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower & guarantor with service of demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 03.07.2016. The said demand notice was sent to the applicants which is admitted by the applicants in its application that the applicants have received the demand notice on 12.09.2017. No objection/representation was filed by the applicant against the demand notice. Thereafter, the respondent bank proceeded further and issued Possession Notice and pasted on the auspicious place of secured assets and also served to the applicants. The appLicants made a settlement with the bank but failed to comply with the terms of 0TS which is also admitted by the applicants in its application. Hence, the respondent bank issued a letter dated 14.12.2022 to the applicant to vacate the premises towards physical possession of the property.

¶31

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

¶32

It has been alleged that the Demand Notice dated 03.07.2017 was delivered to the applicants on 12.09.2017 i.e. after expiry of 60 days from the date of its issuance. Therefore, the applicant could not submit its representation against demand notice neither the date of NPA nor the rate of interest has been disclosed by the bank. No details of the property have been given. Without serving as well as withdrawing the Possession Notice dated 10.02.2021, the respondent bank issued another Possession Notice dated 05.05.2022. The boundaries of the property in question mentioned in possession notice dated 05.05.2022 are not identical with the possession notice dated 10.02.2021.

¶33

On perusal of records it appears that the demand notice 03.07.2017

\J„

SA 402 of 2022 IJI

DRT, PATN A

was received by the applicants on 12.09.2017 as evident from the annexure – 1 series, page 10–12 of the counter affidavit.

¶39

The Rule 13[3-AI of the Security Interest [Enforcement] Rules 2002 which reads as under-

¶40

[If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate [within fifteen days] of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for nonacceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower:

¶41

Considering the above Rule, the applicants have to submit its objection/representation from the date of receipt of said demand notice but no representation/objection was filed by the applicants against demand notice.

¶42

Further, the respondent bank issued possession notice dated 10.02.2021 but respondent bank failed to file any proof of service of possession notice to the applicants. The respondent bank also annexed the copy of possession notice dated 05.05.2022 with the counter affidavit which did not indicate the withdrawal of earlier possession notice. It seems that the possession notice dated 05.05.2022 was issued without withdrawing the earlier possession notice. Conjoint reading of both the possession notice, it also appears that the boundaries of the property in question are not identical. Respondent Bank also failed to file the proof of service of possession notice dated 05.05.2022 upon the applicants also failed to file the proof of affixation of possession notice on secured asset.

¶43

Furthermore. the respondent bank in its counter affidavit at para 4 stated that the account was declared as NPA on 03.07.2017 while the demand notice was issued on 03.07.2016 i.e. prior to declaration of

\b,,

SA 402 of 2022 IJI

DRT, PATN A

account as NPA. However, the copy of demand notice annexed with the counter affidavit reveals that the demand notice was issued on 03.07.2017 but no date of NPA has been mentioned in the said demand notice nor the rate of interest has been mentioned.

¶49

In view of the above discussion, it appears that the SARFAESI Action was initiated against the applicants in a very casual manner by the Bank. The compliance of Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. service of possession notice could not be proved. As such the present application the present SA succeeds.

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The application SA 402 of 2022 is allowed with costs. The measures taken fir SAFAESI Action under challenge are hereby set aside. Q,,,+//

¶52

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶53

Presiding Officer

¶54

Debts Recovery Tribunal. Patna

¶55

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

[KaushalendraYadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

MD Rafiqul Islam and Anr. v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Rafiqul Islam and Anr. v. Central Bank of India

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

Jitendra Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sucha Singh

Canara Bank versus Manga Singh Aulakh