Quashed

Ms Matang Agro Private Limited v. Indian Bank

DRT18 Jun 2026SA/549/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal held that a Section 13(2) notice was invalid because the property details did not match the CERSAI registered charge. Consequently, the notice and subsequent proceedings were quashed, and expenses were not debited from the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Notice under Section 13(2) and all subsequent proceedings were quashed; incurred expenses not debited; securities application allowed.

Ms Matang Agro Private Limited versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Case No. SA/549/2026

¶3

Item No. 15

¶4

MS MATANG AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs INDIAN BANK

¶5

Date: 18.06.2026.

¶6

Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶7

Shri Akarsh Mathur, Counsel for the Applicant

¶8

Shri Mohit Khandelwal, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶9

In this matter, the counsel for the respondent bank submits that they have filed the CERSAI Charge extract and also filed reply. The area of one of the properties mentioned in the CERSAI Report is only 200 Sq. Mtr., but while issuing the auction notice the area mentioned as 2000 Sq. Mtr. Besides that one of the properties i.e. H 1-207 has been included which do not find mention in the CERSAI Report. It is a fact that proceedings under the SARFAESI can be taken when there are two ingredients which are mandatory complied with:-

¶10

Account should be declared NPA.

¶11

There should be a CERSAI Charge registered.

¶12

Admittedly, the description of the property is given in the notice under Section 13(2) does not find mention in the CERSAI Report and without any CERSAI Charge on the property, the bank has issued notice under Section 13(2).

¶13

The counsel for the respondent bank submits that it is a typographical error. Be that it may be, there are a charge registered only on the area of 200 Sq.Mtr. not on the area of 2000 Sq. Mtr..Further, property H 1-207 is not included in the CERSAI Charge.

¶14

¶15

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶16

The Tribunal also finds that the Survey No. 742 is mentioned as Commercial Property whereas in the notice under Section 13(2) it is mentioned as Industrial Property. So far as charge under hypothecation is concerned, only charge on the inventory (receivables) of groundnut is being mentioned therein, but notice under Section 13(2) includes hypothecation of stock of raw material, WIP, finished goods, store spares, consumables of the unit at their premises and at various godowns or at some other places including goods in transit and receivables and all other current assets including loan and advance receivables etc. Hypothecation of entire fixed assets of these does not find mention except hypothecation of inventory and receivables that too clarified by the counsel that it is groundnut only.

¶17

Counsel for the respondent bank submits that they may be permitted to rectify the CERSAI Charge and they are at liberty to do so, but any action can be taken only for the properties which are mentioned in CERSAI Report. The respondent bank will be at liberty to rectify their charges and issue fresh demand notice in strict compliance to two mandatory provisions:-

¶18

Accounts should be declared NPA.

¶19

The CERSAI Charge should be registered.

¶20

It is an unique example that how the bankers negligently without application of mind file charges before the CERSAI and how notice under Section 13(2) issued in a routine manner without verifying the mandatory compliance.

¶21

In these circumstances, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that notice under Section 13(2) is issued without statutory compliance, hence,

¶22

¶23

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶24

the same is quashed and all the subsequent proceedings also stands quashed. The incurred expenses will not be debited in the account of the applicant by the respondent bank.

¶25

In view of the above, this Securitization Application stands allowed. Copy of the order be sent to the MD of the Bank for corrective steps not only in this matter even in the other matters to ensure that action under Securitization Act is taken after ensuring CERSAI Charge.

¶26

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

¶27

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶28

Ms Matang Agro Private Limited v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Matang Agro Private Limited v. Indian Bank

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

Sannu Kanwar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Bajaj Finance Ltd. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Gog Chand Raigar versus Laxmi India Finleasecap Private Limited

Ram Kishan Gehlot versus Mentor Home Loans India Limited

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur versus Gaurav Achaar Udyag

Sharma Kirana General Store and Doodh Dairy versus Hdb Financial Services Limited