Dismissed

Ms Sanjay Shoe and Another v. Uco Bank

DRT24 Feb 2026SA/97/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal dismissed an application seeking a stay on bank recovery measures. It held that since the bank had withdrawn earlier notices and issued fresh ones, the current application challenging the old notices was not maintainable. Additionally, the sale notice was declared infructuous.

What did the court decide?

IA/3676/2025 dismissed; SA/97/2025 dismissed as it is non-maintainable and sale notice is infructuous.

Case No. SA	Order Sheet (continuation) /97/2025 MS SANJAY SHOE AND ANOTHER Vs UCO BANK Offi
Date of	Order with Signature with Sign Part
the Order	ne
24/02/202	Ld. Counsels Mr. R. D. Bagchi, Mr. Suman Mondal and Mr.
Rina S. 6	Prabir Das appeared for Sarfaesi Applicant. Bank. Ld. Counsel Mr. Souradipta Saha appeared for Respondent Sarfaesi Applicant has filed IA/3676/2025 praying for stay of further proceedings by Bank contending that Bank has withdrawn demand notice, possession notice and also sale notice. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for Applicant that Bank would claim charge for issuance of fresh demand notice, possession notice and sale notice which they have withdrawn which should not be permitted and prays for stay on measures taken by Bank. Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank has submitted that Bank has withdrawn earlier measures including issuance of demand notice and issued fresh demand notice and possession notice and submits that in this SA which is challenged on earlier demand notice and possession notice, so this SA is not maintainable. When Respondent Bank has withdrawn Demand Notice and Possession Notice and sale notice and issued fresh demand notice and possession notice, the SA filed on earlier Demand Notice and possession notice is not maintainable. If the Bank makes any charge on issuance of demand notice

Case No. SA

Order Sheet (continuation)
/97/2025
MS SANJAY SHOE AND ANOTHER Vs UCO BANK

Offi

Date of

Order with Signature
with
Sign
Part

the Order

24/02/202

Ld. Counsels Mr. R. D. Bagchi, Mr. Suman Mondal and Mr.

Rina S.
6

Prabir Das appeared for Sarfaesi Applicant. Bank.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Souradipta Saha appeared for Respondent
Sarfaesi Applicant has filed IA/3676/2025 praying for stay of
further proceedings by Bank contending that Bank has withdrawn
demand notice, possession notice and also sale notice. It is submitted by
Ld. Counsel for Applicant that Bank would claim charge for issuance of
fresh demand notice, possession notice and sale notice which they have
withdrawn which should not be permitted and prays for stay on
measures taken by Bank.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank has submitted that Bank has
withdrawn earlier measures including issuance of demand notice and
issued fresh demand notice and possession notice and submits that in
this SA which is challenged on earlier demand notice and possession
notice, so this SA is not maintainable.
When Respondent Bank has withdrawn Demand Notice and
Possession Notice and sale notice and issued fresh demand notice and
possession notice, the SA filed on earlier Demand Notice and possession
notice is not maintainable.
If the Bank makes any charge on issuance of demand notice

Date of the Order	Order with Signature Offi with Sign Part ne
	and possession notice and if the Applicant is aggrieved may challenge the fresh demand notice by filing separate SA. There is no merit tostay
	Respondent Bank to take any measures.
	Hence, IA/3676/2025 is not maintainable. It is ordered as follows:
	i) IA/3676/2025 is dismissed on contest against Respondent
	Bank.
	ii) SA/97/2025 is also dismissed as the Bank has issued fresh
	Demand Notice and Possession Notice. Sale notice challenged in this SA become infructuous. iii) Applicant may challenge fresh Demand Notice when Possession notice is served upon the Applicant.
	(Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer

Date of
the Order

Order with Signature
Offi
with
Sign
Part
ne

and possession notice and if the Applicant is aggrieved may challenge the
fresh demand notice by filing separate SA. There is no merit tostay

Respondent
Bank
to
take
any
measures.

Hence, IA/3676/2025 is not maintainable. It is ordered as
follows:

i)
IA/3676/2025 is dismissed on contest against Respondent

Bank.

ii)
SA/97/2025 is also dismissed as the Bank has issued fresh

Demand Notice and Possession Notice. Sale notice challenged in
this SA become infructuous.
iii)
Applicant
may
challenge
fresh
Demand
Notice
when
Possession notice is served upon the Applicant.

(Ambuja Mohan Das)
Presiding Officer

Ms Sanjay Shoe and Another v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sanjay Shoe and Another v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Subhankar Mondal

Axis Bank versus Ms D.M.P Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Uco Bank versus Ms Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Ashiful Haque versus Punjab National Bank

Mrs Sonali Bhattacharjee versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Kalpana Halder and Others