Dismissed

Shailendra Kumar v. Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank

DRT22 Jun 2026SA/62/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SA 62 of 2025, the Patna DRT dismissed an applicant's application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act seeking to quash possession notices against his secured asset. The court held that the application was not maintainable due to the non-joinder of the necessary parties, namely the guarantors involved in the loan contract.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the SARFAESI action and possession notice was dismissed as non-maintainable due to the non-joinder of guarantors.

Shailendra Kumar versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA 62 of 2025 IJI

DRT. PATN A

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer :Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 62 of 2025

¶7

Shailendra Kumar, Son of Late Parmeshwar MaIlto, Village - Rishi Paharpur, P.O. - Paharpur, P.S. - Mednichowki, District – Lakhisarai, Pin – 811106.

¶8

. . . . . . .. .Applicant/Borrower

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Shri Vishnu Commercial Complex, NH-30, New Bypass, Near BP Highway Services Petrol Pump, Asochak, Patna - 800016.

¶11

The Branch Manager, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Mednichowki Branch, Mednichowki, District – Lakhisarai - 811106.

¶12

--respondents

¶13

Present:

¶14

For the Applicant : Sh. Bishwajit Kumar, Advocate For the respondent Bank : Sh. Manoranjan Kr. Mishra, Advocate

¶15

Dated: 22.06.2026

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Present application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESI action taken against the properties of applicant alongwith the possession notice.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant availed financial assistance by way of Cash Credit and Term Loan facility from the respondent bank, On default in repayment of the dues of the bank, the accounts of the applicant were declared as NPA on 31.03.2024. Subsequently, the bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 21.05.2024 calling upon the applicant to make the payment of Rs.53,73,697.16. Further, the respondent Bank took possession of the secured asset by issuing Possession Notice dated 04.01.2025 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved from Possession Nptic9 the applicant filed this SA

L/:P

SA 62 of 2025 IJI

DRT. PATN A

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicant that without prior intimation to the applicant, the accounts were classified as NPA by the respondent Bank and without serving the Demand Notice, all of sudden on 04.01.2025 a Possession Notice has been served to the applicant. The Possession Notice has neither been affixed on secured asset nor published in two leading newspapers. On receipt of Possession Notice, the applicant approached to respondent Bank for settlement of accounts under OTS but the respondent bank refused to accept the OTS proposal of applicant.

¶24

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that due to default in repayment of dues of the Bank, the accounts of the borrower were classified as NPA on 31.03.2024. Subsequently, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against borrower and guarantor by issuing Demand Notice dated 21.05.2024 under section 13(2) of the Act and the same was sent to the applicant through registered post on 31.05.2024. Despite of service of demand notice, the borrower failed to repay the dues of the bank hence, the respondent bank proceeded further and taken possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 04.01.2025 and affix the same on the secured asset. Further, the possession notice was served to the applicant on as admitted by the applicant in its application. Further, the possession notice was also published in “Hindustan” and “Hindustan Times” on 06.01.2025. Despite of repeated request, the applicant never tried to regularize the account. However, the respondent Bank is always ready to compromise the account as per Bank’s guidelines.

¶25

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

¶26

It is alleged that the without prior intimation to the applicant, the accounts were classified as NPA and without serving the Demand Notice, the Possession Notice dated 04.01.2025 has been served upon applicant. The Possession Notice neither been affixed on secured asset nor published in two leading newspapers.

¶27

On perusal of records it appears that the account were classified as NPA on 31.03.2024. In order to recovery the outstanding dues, the respondent Bank initiated SARFAESI Action against borrower and guarantors by issuing

:r&

SA 62 of 2025 [JI

DRT. PATN A

Demand Notice dated 21.05.2024 under section 13(2) of the Act which was sent to the applicant through registered post as appears from the copy of postal receipt filed as annexure –R-2, page 12 of Supplementary Counter Affidavit and the same was delivered upon applicant on 01.06.2024 as evident from its tracking report filed as annexure R-2, page 11 of Supplementary Counter Affidavit.

¶33

Further, the respondent Bank issued Possession Notice dated 04.01.2025 and the same was served to the applicant as admitted by the applicant in para (v) of the application. The Possession Notice was affixed on the secured asset and also got published in “Hindustan” and “Hindustan Times” on 06.01.2025 as evident from the annexure 4-6, page 15-17 of the counter affidavit.

¶34

At the same time, it is important to consider the effect of non-joinder of the guarantors, namely Shri Chandra Kishor MaIlto and Smt. Kavita Devi, in the present application. The non-joinder of the necessary parties result in multiplicity of proceedings, and the application filed by the borrower is not maintainable without impieading the guarantors, as the controversy involved cannot be effectively adjudicated in their absence, they being a party to the contract. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the applicant.

¶35

10.In view of the above discussion, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The application SA 62 of 2025, is Dismissed. N

rIII11HHB) (\

[KaushalendraYadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶42

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 22~- D,y ,fJ„„,, 2026. vY4, \r_/b"

¶43

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶44

Presiding Officer

¶45

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Shailendra Kumar v. Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar v. Dakshin Bihar Gramin 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

Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India) versus Ajay Attri (Prop M/S Guru Traders)

State Bank of India versus Yogesh Gupta

Union Bank of India versus Vandana Sukhija and Others

M/S Hotel Ocimum Palace versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Shri Binod Thocker

State Bank of India versus Shri Dhan Bahadur pradhan & Ors.