The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed by borrowers challenging a bank's recovery proceedings. The tribunal held the application was time-barred and found the bank had duly complied with all statutory requirements, rejecting claims against the auction process.
S.A. dismissed; all other pending IAs disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW
Date of order or Order with signature of court Office action
taken with
proceeding
date
S.A. No.907/2024
05.01.2026 The Judgment is signed and
pronounced on separate sheets. Separately
attached in 05 sheets.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s
website.
(Dictated)
./’
(Pravas Kumar s&h)I
Presiding Officer
(Mugish)
1
S.A. No.907 of 2024
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW
Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer Securitization Application No.907 of 2024
Dated 05.01.2026
––-- Applicants
VerUsus
–-–-- Respondent.
2
S. No.907 of 2024
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant: Shri Gautam Kumar, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank: Shri Rahul Yadav, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the auction purchaser: Shri Bhaskar Tripathi, Advocate
JUDGMENT
N'
S. No.907 of 2024
presence on 17.09.2024, but this SA has been filed on 17.12.2024. It is stated that the SA itself is hopelessly time barred. It is further submitted that even after receipt of sale notice dated 07.05.2024 the SA was not filed within 45 days of the receipt of the notice; hence, the relief of the applicant regarding sale is also hopelessly time barred. As far as compliance is concerned. Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that all the statutory compliances were made by the applicant in time.
4
S. No.907 of 2024
10.1 have considered the rival submissions.
“The Hon’ble Apex Court has framed a question and laid down ratio, as to the circumstances, when a sale of property by auction or other means under SARFAESI Act may be set aside after its confirmation. Their Lordships have examined a series of judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has been said that purpose of an open auction is to get the most enumerative price and it is a duty of the Court to keep openness of the auction so that intending bidder would be free to participate and offer higher value. It is said that once the sale has been confirmed, it cannot be set aside unless fundamental procedural error occurred or sale certificate has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. After discussions of several other judgments their Lordship has propounded the ratio in para 218 of the judgment.”
" Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already con$rmed or concluded ought not to be set-aside or interfered with tightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being coltusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or tmderbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule which does not have any fundamental procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such proceeding. In such cases) courts in particular should be mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have
5
S. No.907 of 2024
been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confIrmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity.
File be consigned to record room.
[Pravas Kumar SW] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.
Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open call# on this 5th Day of January, 2026.
[Pravas Kumar SmgnJ Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.
(Mugish)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Securitization Application filed by the applicant was hopelessly time barred?
Whether the respondent bank complied with statutory requirements under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and sale notice provisions?
Whether any ground exists to cancel the sale certificate obtained by the bank?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Ansh Rice Mill
Jitendra Kumar
Indian Bank
Pravas Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
