Assets Care vs Samrana Akhtar & Anr.

The present case was heard and reserved for orders by this Tribunal vide order dated 29.05.2026.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only issue involved in the present case is, as to whether the publication of possession notice made in newspapers namely Business Standard in English and Hindi languages is one publication or two as per law. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that publication of the notices has been made as per provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder in two newspapers namely Business Standard in Hindi and English languages, but the Tribunal below has erred in holding that the publication made in Business Standard Newspapers in Hindi and English editions is one newspaper and consequently, the possession notice and its subsequent auctions of the Bank have been set-aside. It is, therefore, prayed that the order impugned may be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Tribunal below has rightly set aside the symbolic possession notice holding that the same was published in one newspaper namely Business Standard in Hindi and English, as the said publication is made by one firm i.e. in the name and style of Business Standard, therefore, it cannot be said that the possession notice was published in two newspapers. It was, therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed with heavy costs.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and considering the material available on record, it is observed that the respondent-Bank has published the possession notice in the newspapers namely "Business Standard in Hindi and English Editions". The Business Standard is the name of the firm. A firm can do its any business from its own name. From the record, it is clear that the Business Standard is doing the business of publication of news in Hindi and English languages separately. The entity of both the newspapers is distinct and separate. If the notices had been published in Hindi and English in one edition, the case would have been otherwise, but the possession notice was published in Hindi edition and English edition of the Business Standard separately, therefore, it cannot be said that the said notice was published in one newspaper, because the Business Standard Hindi edition and English edition are two different newspapers. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal below that the Business Standard Newspapers Hindi and English editions are one newspaper, appears to be erroneous.

In the S.A. filed by the respondent, except the possession notice, there were other issues also like challenge to the sale notice etc., but these issues have not been addressed and decided by the Tribunal below and only on the basis of holding the possession notice to be defective, the entire proceedings except demand notice of the appellant has been quashed by the Tribunal below while passing the order impugned, therefore, it is a fit case to be remanded back to the Tribunal below for its fresh adjudication.

In view of the above, the order impugned is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the Tribunal below for deciding it afresh strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously without being influenced by the observations made herein above. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties as well as to the DRT concerned and be also uploaded on the e-DRT portal.