Dismissed

Ramesh Kumar Jha v. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

DRT27 Mar 2026SA/84/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Section 17 SARFAESI application seeking to quash a Possession Notice. The court noted discrepancies in the notice dates and the non-joinder of the guarantor as fatal infirmities but held no relief could be granted.

What did the court decide?

The application u/s 17 SARFAESI Act with all pending IAs is dismissed with cost; interim orders stand vacated.

Ramesh Kumar Jha versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA 84 of 2024 [JI

DRT.PATN A

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNALPATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer :Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 84 of 2024

¶7

Ramesh Kumar Jha, S/o Late Kapoor Chand Jha, R/o Punaura, P.S. : Sitamarhi, District : Sitamarhi (Bihar) 843302.

¶8

,Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Authorized Officer-cum-Chief Manager, Indian Bank (Erstshile Allahabad Bank), Sonbarsha Branch, Sitamarhi, Bihar.

¶11

–respondent

¶12

Present :

¶13

For the Applicant : Sh. Pranav Kr. Jha, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Sh. Bikas Tiwary, Advocate

¶14

Dated: 27.03.2026

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Present application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESI Action taken by the respondent bank against the property in question including Possession Notice. Along with this application, the applicant has filed IA 157/2024 with the prayer to stay the operation of Possession Notice dated 02.02.2024.

¶17

The brief fact of the case is that applicants availed financial assistance to the tune of Rs.16.36 lacs as Term Loan from the respondent bank. To secure the loan facility, the applicant mortgaged the property with the bank. On default in repayment of the dues of the bank, the account of the applicants was declared as NPA on 23.10.2017. Subsequently, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 19.11.2022 calling upon the borrower to make the payment of Rs.25,28,177/-. Further, Possession Notice dated 02.02.2024 was issued u/s 13(4) of

4„Y”

SA 84 of 2024 FJI

DRT,PATN A

the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved from the Possession Notice, the present SA has been filed by the applicant.

¶23

It is submitted by the td. Counsel of applicant that the applicant was paying the installments regularly till Mid 2016. All of sudden, the Senior Manager of the respondent bank lodged a Criminal Case No. 136/2016 before Sonbarsha P.S. Accordingly, the applicant being a staff member of the respondent bank, suspended by the bank. As the applicant was suspended, the applicant suffered a huge financial crunch therefore the installments could not be paid further. Further, the applicant was terminated from the service with effect from 03.02.2018. After termination the applicant was arrested by the Police and remained in custody from January, 2019 to August, 2021. The respondent bank served notice dated 19.11.2022 issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Before classification of account as NPA no notice was served to the applicant. Further, the respondent bank issued Possession Notice dated 02.02.2024. The applicant is ready to pay the dues of the bank but some time may be given as the applicant is suffering from financial crunch. The applicant is not the willful defaulter but suffered due to FIR lodged by the respondent bank and termination from service. The property in question is Dwelling House wherein the applicant is residing with his family. Hence, the operation of possession notice may also be stayed.

¶24

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submitted that the borrower after availing the loan facilities from respondent bank, breached the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed to repay the same. Hence, the loan account was declared as NPA on 23.10.2017. Thereafter, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower and issued demand notice dated 19.11.2022 calling upon the borrower to make the payment of

.„,+

DRT.PATNA

SA 84 of 2024 [JI

Rs.25,28,177/- but the applicant failed to repay the same. Hence, the respondent bank proceeded further and took possession of the property on 03'd February, 2024 by issuing Possession Notice dated 02.02.2024. Prior to classification of account as NPA, the applicant was apprised by the respondent bank through his messenger and Branch Manager on several occasions but the applicant did not liquidate the account.

¶30

So far as initiation of Criminal Case is concerned, it is not relevant to the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act. The Criminal Case, suspension and termination are separate issues and have no bearing on the applicant’s obligation to repay the loan amount.

¶31

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

¶32

The only allegation of the applicant that notice prior to declaration of account as NPA, was served upon the applicant.

¶33

On perusal of records it appears that due to institution of Criminal Case and further proceeding there-under, the applicant could not repay the loan amount, hence the loan account was classified as NPA. Furthermore, the applicant has also admitted at para xiii of the application that Demand Notice dated 1911.2022 was served upon him. The applicant has also admitted the knowledge of issuance of Possession Notice dated 02.02.2024 in his application at para xix. The applicant has neither alleged the publication of possession notice nor denied its affixation on secured assets.

¶34

The Respondent did not file any document with the counter affidavit as the applicant admits receipt of demand notice and possession notice. The copies thereof have been annexed with the S.A. also.

¶35

From the perusal of Enclosure -2 at page 19 of the SA is the possession notice dated 02.02.2024, it appears that it was issued on 02.02.2024

Vw”

SA 84 of 2024 [JI

DRT.PATNA

while the possession of the secured asset has been shown on 03'd February, 2024 which is not possible and prima-facie fabricated, antedated also contrary to the provision and rules laid down under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶41

At the same time it is not out of place to mention that Smt. Rubi Jha, the guarantor whose name appears in demand notice as well as in the possession notice, has not been made party. No effective order can be passed in her absence. Non-joinder of aforesaid necessary parties gives rise to the multiplicity of judicial proceedings. At the same time the possibility of willingness of other stakeholders to pay the dues as demanded by the respondent cannot be ruled out. This application is not maintainable without impleading the aforesaid necessary party. In the above circumstances despite the aforesaid infirmities, no relief can be granted to the applicant.

¶42

In view of the above discussion, the present S.A. fails.

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act filed by Ramesh Kumar Jha, with all pending IAs if any, is dismissed with cost. Interim order passed if any in the matter, stands vacged. A

¶45

r__/>;~„*” [KaJ£hMdraYadav]

¶46

Presiding Officer

¶47

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶48

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 27th Day of March, 2026.

¶49

[KaushalgrMadav]

¶50

Presiding Officer

¶51

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Ramesh Kumar Jha v. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Jha v. Indian Bank (Allahabad 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

State Bank of India versus Rajendrakumar Jain

Inno Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Rajdeepsinh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sher Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Smt. Jaswinder Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Bandhav Filling Centre