Dismissed

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. v. Axis Bank Limited

DRT20 Aug 2026SA/90/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, applicants challenged a possession notice from Axis Bank, claiming inadequate affixation. The Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected this plea, finding the notice properly issued and affixed, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The application to set aside the possession notice was dismissed.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. versus Axis Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI

¶3

S.A. No.90/2025

¶4

Mr. Amit Kumar Nag, S/o Dipak Nag, Residing at S.N. Balashi, Dewan Hatmoamari, Dewanhat, Coochbehar-1, Coochbehar, West Bengal, Pin-736134.

¶5

Mrs. Ratna Pal, D/o Biren Pal, Residing at Dewan Hat, Nawabganj, Balasi, Dewanhat, Coochbehar, West Benagal-736134.

¶6

…………………….Applicants

¶7

¶8

Axis Bank Limited, having its Branch Office at AC Market Building, 3^rd Floor, 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071, having its registered office at Trishul, oppSamartheshwar Temple, Ellis Bridege, Ahmedabad-380006.

¶9

The Authorized Officer, Axis Bank Limited, having its Branch Office at AC Market Building, 3^rd Floor, 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071.

¶10

……..…………Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the applicants Counsel for the respondents

¶12

: Ms. Alaknanda Das, Ms.Jyoti Bhakta

¶13

: Mr. Sagnik Bhowmick.

¶14

PRESIDING OFFICER: RAKESH PATI TIWARI

¶15

Date of Judgment -20.08.2026

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

This is an application under section 17(1) of The Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act), filed by the applicants for setting aside the possession notice dated 12.02.2025 issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶18

Case of the applicants in short is that the respondent bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 10,26,000/- in favour of the applicants upon securing the equitable mortgage and no sanction letter has been handed over to the applicants by the defendant bank with regards to the said two loans. It has been contended by the applicants that the loan account was running perfectly and although the loan was taken for a business venture involving a cab line and set-off box distribution but due hip bone fracture of applicants father, the applicant has diverted most of his resources towards his father treatment and recovery and due to such medical expenses, he was unable to meet the loan repayment obligations on time and as a result the account turned into NPA. It has been urged by the applicants that the respondent bank issued one possession notice dated 12.02.2025 and

¶19

(cont/..)

¶20

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.21 TIWARI 18:43:33 +05'30'

¶21

¶22

served the same to the applicants through speed post, which the applicant received on 22.02.2025 but it did not affix the same to any conspicuous part of the mortgaged property and thus the respondents violated the Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The applicants have admitted the publication of possession notice stating that the respondent bank published the said possession notice dated 12.02.2025 in English newspaper namely "Business Standard" and in a vernacular language newspaper namely "Aajkal" on 14.02.2025 as per Rule 8(2) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶23

The respondents filed their written objection stating inter-alia that the application is barred by the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence. Further, the applicants have no locus-standi to file the instant application. The contention of the respondent bank is that through the notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, on 23.10.2024, the Applicants were duly informed that the loan account of the applicant had been classified as NPA. It has been contended by the respondents that the 13(2) notice dated 23.10.2024 included an explicit breakdown and quantification of the debts comprising the demanded amount, fully aligning with the requirements stipulated in Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. Further contention of the respondents is that following the expiration of the statutory period of 60 days, the respondent bank proceeded with the enforcement procedures as outlined in the SARFAESI Act of 2002 and only after the completion of these proper and legally mandated procedures, the respondent bank took the definitive step of issuing the 'Possession Notice' on 12.02.2025 and the respondent bank published the said possession notice on 12.02.2025 in two widely circulated newspapers "The Business Standard" in English and "Aajkal" in the vernacular language and affixed the possession notice at a conspicuous outer part of the mortgage property. According to the respondents the measures are carried out in strict accordance with the established legal frameworks, and they reflect the bank’s unwavering commitment in upholding the principles of fairness, legality and due process.

¶24

Learned counsel of the applicants and learned counsel of the respondents have already been heard.

¶25

The applicants have admitted the sanction of Cash Credit Loan of Rs. 10,26,000/- and creation of equitable mortgage of the immovable property. Receipt of 13(2) & 13(4) notices and publication of possession notice have also been admitted by the applicants.

¶26

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.21 TIWARI 18:43:44 +05'30'

¶27

(cont/..)

¶28

¶29

The only plea taken by the applicants is that the respondent bank issued one possession notice dated 12.02.2025 and served the same to the applicants but did not affix the same on the conspicuous part of the mortgaged property. The reply of the respondents on this plea is that the respondent bank affixed the possession notice at a conspicuous outer part of the mortgage property and to prove the affixation the respondents have filed photograph of affixation (Annexure –‘B’ series) along with their written objection and as such there is no force in this plea of the applicants.

¶30

In view of the above discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs, this Tribunal is of the opinion that all the SARFAESI measures taken by the respondent bank are in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the rules framed thereunder and thus the instant S.A. is dismissed .

¶31

No order as to cost.

¶32

Registry is directed to send/serve copy of this order upon both the parties free of cost.

¶33

Order be uploaded in the website of the Tribunal.

¶34

Let the record be consigned to the Record Room.

¶35

The judgment is signed and pronounced in the open Tribunal on 20^th day of August, 2026.

¶36

RAKESH Digitally signed by RAKESH PATI PATI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.21 TIWARI 18:43:55 +05'30'

¶37

(RAKESH PATI TIWARI) Presiding Officer DRT, Siliguri.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. v. Axis Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. v. Axis Bank Limited

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

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Sri.Heeru Somalu Lamani

Canara Bank versus Sri.Vijayakumar

Canara Bank versus Sri.Veerendra. D.M

Ms Anjani Kumar Srivastava and Others versus Mansarovar Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Sri Tuhin Kumar Das and Another versus Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Al Sahin Parvej (Prop of M/S B.S. Trading)