Dismissed

M S Satyam Enterprises v. Punjab National Bank

DRT13 Jan 2026SA/62/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants appealled (Securitization Application) to set aside an e-auction notice and recovery proceedings. Debt Recovery Tribunal noted sale hadn't occurred but dismissed application as meritless, criticizing concealment of a prior dismissed application and confirming valid service of statutory notices by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application (S.A. No. 62 of 2025) dismissed as devoid of merit; pending Interim Applications disposed of.

M S Satyam Enterprises versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

¶2

LUCKNOW

¶3

Dateoforderor proceeding	Order with signature of court	Officeaction takenwith date
S.A.No.62/2025 13.01.2026	The Judgment is signed and pronounced on separate sheets. Separately attachedin 04sheets.
	Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website. (Dictated) (PravasKurha, Singh) PresidingOfficer (Manoj)

¶4

¶5

S.A. No. 62 of 2025

¶6

IN TEn DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW

¶7

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh,

¶8

Presiding Officer

¶9

Securitization Application No. 62 of 2025

¶10

Dated 13.01.2026

¶11

M/s Satyam Enterprises through its Proprietor Savita Mishra W/o Manoj Kumar Mishra B- 145, Sector-5 1, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P

¶12

Savita Mishra W/o Manoj Kumar Mishra B- 145, Sector-5 1, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. Proprietor of M/s Satyam Enterprises

¶13

Manoj Kumar Mishra S/o Satish Chand Mishra B- 145, Sector-51, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P.

¶14

––-- Applicants

¶15

versus

¶16

Punjab National Bank, Branch Chander Nagar, District Ghaziabad through its Authorized Officer.

¶17

Having its Head Office at : Punjab National Bank Circle Sastra Ghaziabad, 2nd Floor KJ-13 Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002.

¶18

–– Respondent,

¶19

Counsel for applicants : Mr. Shishir Chandra, Advocate. Counsel for respondent-bank : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate,

¶20

B P _/,

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The present Securitization Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act).

S.A. No. 62 of 2025

This SA has been filed by the applicant for relief to set aside the e-auction sale notice dated 06.12.2024 and to set aside all the proceedings of recovery initiated by the respondent bank.

¶27

3 . Admittedly, sale has not taken place.

¶28

At the time of arguments it was placed that one OTS proposal is pending with the respondent bank. Before dictating the order I confirmed from the Ld counsel for the respondent bank Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla that OTS proposal has already been rejected by the respondent bank. Hence, I have proceeded for final order.

¶29

Applicant no. 1 availed Overdraft limit of Rs. 3.00 Crores from the respondent bank on 30.11.2015, the borrower is a NfNz

¶30

proprietorship Firm represented through its proprietor wed as applicant.

¶31

C-

¶32

It is stated that respondent bank instead of considering the request of restructuring the loan, issued a demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and on 10.01.2019 to the applicant no. 1 & 2. The loan was classified as NPA on 08.04.2019. the representation was filed under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act by the applicant. It is stated that any positive or negative reply was not given by the respondent bank. Further case being that due to Covid -19 and Lockdown the applicant could not maintain the financial discipline of the respondent bank. But the respondent bank was proceeding under the Securitization proceedings. It is stated that in the meantime the order under section 14 of the Act was obtained. Further case being that being interested in the settlement of the account one OTS proposal with demand draft of upfront amount was submitted but applicant was apprised regarding cancellation of the OTS proposal vide letter dated 03.02.2024.

¶33

It is further stated that applicant has already paid substantial amount of Rs. 2.70 Crores but the respondent bank has deliberately rejected the OTS proposal. The plea has also been

Page 2 of 4

S.A. No. 62 of 2025

taken that proper equitable mortgage was hot created by the respondent bank.

¶38

The respondent bank has filed a detailed written objection. It is stated at the outset that applicant had also brought one SA no. 219/2021 before this Tribunal, which was dismissed for nonprosecution vide order dated 16.08.2023 but instead of filing restoration of the same, this fresh SA has been brought by the applicant. It is submitted that loan sanction letter has been annexed at page no. 24 of the written objection, Copy of the transfer deed has been filed in written objection at page no. 26 to 151 for showing that property was duly made secured assets. The CERSAI Registration has been filed with the written objection as Annexure No. R-6.

¶39

Ld counsel for the respondent bank submitted that since the eP“~

¶40

demand notice has already Iadmitted and it was not required to be proved. However, the respondent bank has annexed R-7, the demand notice dated 06.02.2020 along with proof of service, it has been shown to the Tribunal. It is stated that possession notice dated 06.10.2021 was also duly served upon the applicant and in proof thereof postal receipt, affixation and publication of the possession notice has been shown to the Tribunal annexed with the written objection.

¶41

10.It is stated that Statement of Account has also been enclosed with written objection.

¶42

11.Ld .couur eljo;_ the applicant submitted that one OTS proposal i& oNa PR \De ' ’ been

¶43

. x&L'MT£ain&§ending with the resDondent bank whichHe 'P/

¶44

instantly denied by RackB)&Pbr / the respondent bank.

¶45

12.1 find that demand notice under section 13(2) and possession notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act have been duly served upon the applicant and applicant filed representation to the same which has been replied by the respondent bank as per admission of the applicant himself Hence, nothing remains to be

Page 3 of 4

S.A. No. 62 of 2025

pro94y the respondent bank. Admittedly the sale notice which have been put under challenge!, the sale has not taken place.

¶51

Applicant had filed earlier SA but he has concealed this fact at the time of filing of this SA.

¶52

14.In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in the SA. Accordingly, S. A. is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶53

All the pending IAs if any, is also disposed of

¶54

File be consigned to the record room.

¶55

h \)y \tvb\

¶56

[Pravas Kumar shlgh] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.

¶57

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 13th Day of January, 2026.

¶58

) [Pravas Kumar S\njh] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow .

¶59

A J\ ')

¶60

(Ma=„i)

¶61

Page 4 of 4

M S Satyam Enterprises v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Satyam Enterprises v. Punjab National Bank

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

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.

Sadaf Khanam versus Bank of Baroda

Smt Pinki Agarwal versus Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Limited