Dismissed

Vijay Kumar v. State Bank of India

DRT27 Mar 2026SA/84/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to set aside possession and auction proceedings, the Debts Recovery Tribunal examined allegations of non-service of notices and valuation defects. The court found the notices were duly served and published, declaring allegations untrue and the application dismissible.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act dismissed with cost; all pending interim orders vacated.

Vijay Kumar versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

DRT. PATN A

SA 84 of 2025 [JI

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNALPATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer :Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 84 of 2025

¶7

Vijay Kumar, Son of Late Ram Shankar Singh, Village – Balahpur, P.S. – Naya Goan, Sub-Division, Sub Registry & District – Begusarai, At present – Shri Krishnapuri, I.H.A. Road, Ward No. 20. Guarantor.

¶8

.........Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Bank of India, through Regional Manager, SARB, Patna, 2nd Floor Patna Main Branch Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar.

¶11

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, SARB, Patna, 2-d Floor Patna Main Branch Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar

¶12

Durga Enterprises through Proprietor Smt. Durga Kumari, Village – Balahpur, P.S. – Naya Goan, SK S.D & District – Begusarai, At present – Shri Krishnapuri, I.H.A. Road, P.S. Town, S.D. & District Begusarai. Firm.

¶13

Smt. Durga Kumari, Village – Balahpur, P.S. – Naya Goan, SK S.D & District – Begusarai, At present – Shri Krishnapuri, I.H.A. Road, P.S. Town, S.D. & District Begusarai. Borrower.

¶14

Mukesh Singh, S/o Late Ram Shankar Singh, Village – Balahpur, P.S. – Naya Goan, SK S.D & District – Begusarai, At present – Shri Krishnapuri, I.H.A. Road, P.S. Town, S.D. & District Begusarai. (Guarantor).

¶15

Janaki Devi, wife of Late Ram Shankar Singh both residents of Village – Balahpur, P.S. – Naya Goan, SK S.D & District – Begusarai, At present – Shri Krishnapuri, I.H.A. Road, P.S. Town, S.D. & District Begusarai. (Guarantor).

¶16

Hira Devi, D/o Late Ram Shankar Singh, W/o Pankaj Chaudhary, R/o Village – Tiyay, P.S. –Taghra, District – Begusarai (Co-sharer).

¶17

Moti Devi, D/o Late Ram Shankar Singh, W/o Pappu Singh, R/o Village – Dularpur, P.S. – Taghra, District – Begusarai (Co-sharer).

¶18

–respondents

¶19

Present :

¶20

For the Applicant : Sh. Anjani Kr. Singh, Advocate For the respondents Bank : Sh. A.K. Sharan, Advocate For the Respondent No. 3 to 8 : None

DRT. PATN A

SA 84 of 2025 IJI

Dated: 27.03.2026

JUDGIVIENT

Present application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act has been filed with a prayer to set aside the entire SARFAESI Action taken by the respondent bank against the property in question including Possession Notice dated 28.11.2024.

¶27

The brief fact of the case is that the respondent no.3 through its proprietor Smt. Durga Kumari (respondent no.4) availed financial assistance to the tune of Rs.69 lacs which was later on reduced to Rs.50 lakhs as Cash Credit Limit and Rs.9.90 lacs as GECL Limit from the respondent bank. To secure the loan facilities, the applicant as well as respondent no. 4 to 6 given guarantee. The applicant as well as respondent no. 5 & 6 created an equitable mortgage by deposit of Sale Deed. On default in repayment of the dues of the bank, the account of the applicants was declared as NPA on 29.06.2023. The bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower and guarantors and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 13.06.2024 calling upon borrower & guarantors to make the payment of Rs.69,95,522.00. Subsequently, Possession Notice dated 28.11.2024 was issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, Notice u/s 13(8) dated 06.12.2024 was issued to the applicant to exercise the right of redemption. Further, the property was put on auction sale by issuing sale notices dated 31.01.2025 fixing the date of auction sale as 12.03.2025. Aggrieved from the auction sale notice, the present SA has been filed by the applicant.

¶28

It is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicant that due to dispute in the family, the borrower could not repay the amount regularly, hence the

$,,'"

SA 84 of 2025 IJI

DRT. PATN A

account became NPA. The respondent bank without complying with the mandatory provision of SARFAESI Act issued Demand Notice but the demand notice was never served upon applicant. fherefore, the applicant could not exercise his right to file representation/objection u/s 13(3-A) against the demand notice. The respondent bank issued a Possession Notice dated 28.11.2024 but the said possession notice was not served upon applicant. The possession notice was neither affixed on secured assets nor published in two leading newspapers within 07 days. Without complying with the above mandatory provision, the respondent bank proceeded further and issued sale notice dated 01.02.2025 but the sale notice was also not served upon applicant. The reserved price was fixed for Rs.76 lacs while the present market value of the property is more than worth Rs.150 !acs. No copy of the valuation report has been provided to the applicant. The possession notice consists of 03 properties while the sale notice shows only 02 properties.

¶34

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that the borrower after availing the credit facilities from the respondent bank failed to repay the same. Hence, the account of the borrower was declared as NPA on 29.06.2023. Thereafter, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower and issued demand notice dated 13.06.2024. The said demand notice was duly served to the applicant through registered post on 15.06.2024. Despite service of demand notice, the borrower neither repaid the dues of the bank nor raised any objection against demand notice. Hence, the respondent bank proceeded further and took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 28.11.2024. The said possession notice was affixed on the secured asset on the same day and further duly served upon applicant through registered post

SA 84 of 2025 IJI

DRT, PATN A

30.11.2024. The Possession Notice was also published in “Hindustan” and “Hindustan Times” on 01.12.2024. Thereafter, as per the provision of section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the individual notice of Right to Redemption was also issued on 06.12.2024 and sent through Registered Post to the applicant to redeem the property after payment of entire dues of the Bank. Since, the borrower did not liquidate the dues of the bank, respondent bank put the property on auction sale by issuing auction sale notice dated 31.01.2025 fixing the date of auction sale on 12.03.2025 but the sale could not take place in pursuance to the sale notice dated 31.01.2025 due non participation of any bidder,

¶39

It is further submitted that so far objection of applicant regarding auction sale of 02 property out of 03 properties, after issuance of possession notice it is came to the knowledge of the bank that out of 03 securities 02 had been sold during pendency of mortgage so the bank had initiated action on only two properties. The proof of alienation has been proved from the Revenue Records of different claimants and just to cut short the disputes from the other persons may not face difficulty, so the property left with the borrower had been put on auction sale covered through one simple Mortgage.

¶40

So far as the objection regarding valuation is concerned, the reserve price has been fixed by the committee of Secured Creditors on the basis of the valuation Report dated 06.01.2025 of the Registered Valuer of Bank. If the value of the property is more than Rs.150 lacs, the applicant may bring any buyer of the same price or may be permitted to participate in the bid process.

¶41

Neither the respondent no. 3 to 8 appeared nor filed any counter affidavit.

¶42

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

A,$f

SA 84 of 2025 [JI

DRT, PATN A

It is alleged that neither the Demand Notice nor the Possession Notice has been served upon the applicant. Due to non service of demand notice, the applicant could not exercise his right to file representation/objection u/s 13(3-A) against the demand notice. The possession notice was neither affixed on secured assets nor published in two leading newspapers within 07 days. The sale notice dated 01.02.2025 issued by the bank was also not served upon the applicant. The reserved price was fixed for Rs.76 lacs while the present market value of the property is more than worth Rs.150 lacs. The possession notice consist 03 properties while the sale notice shows only 02 properties

¶48

On perusal of records it appears that the applicant himself admitted that due to irregularity in repayment, the account was classified as NPA. The respondent bank issued a demand notice dated 13.06.2024 against the borrowers & guarantors. The demand notice was sent to the applicant through post on 15.06.2024 as appears from the annexure R/2, page 78. The demand notice was delivered to the applicant on 18.06.2024 as evident from the tracking report filed with counter affidavit at page 83. Further, the respondent bank issued a possession notice dated 28.11.2024. The said possession notice was affixed on secured assets on the same day as appears from the annexure R/3, page 88. The possession notice was also sent to the applicant through post on 30.11.2024 and the same was delivered to applicant on 02.12.2024 as appears from the annexure R/3, page 90 and 95 respectively. The possession notice was also published in “Hindustan" and “Hindustan Times" on 01.12.2024. Thereafter, the respondent bank also sent the notice issued u/s 13(8) to the borrower and guarantor to redeem the property.

¶49

So far the objection of the applicant regarding non service of sale

bCvNb ’a'

SA 84 of 2025 IJI

DRT, PATN A

notice and valuation of the property is concerned, since the respondent bank has admitted that the property could not be sold due non participation of bidder. Hence, this objection becomes infructuous at present. So far objection regarding putting 02 properties on auction out of 03 properties is concerned; this issue also became infructuous as sale could not take place.

¶55

In view of the above discussion, no irregularity could be proved as alleged in the S.A.. Accordingly, present S. application can not be allowed.

¶56

ORDER

¶57

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

TA/.
J- (// W'A

[KaushalendraYadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶62

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

[Kaushalendra Yadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Vijay Kumar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. State 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

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