M/s Kashish Garments vs Punjab National Bank

Sh. Rajeev Gupta, Counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.11,69,500/- as pre-deposit on the basis of demand as claimed under Section 13(2) notice of the SARFAI:SI Act. The provision of pre-deposit are complied with. The application is decided accordingly.

The appellant filed S.A. bearing No. 870/2023 titled as M/s Kashish Garments & others v. Punjab National Bank & another which was stated to be pending before DRT-Lucknow. DRT-Lucknow vide order dated 13.10.2025 has dismissed the said S.A. by observing that all the requirements under Section 14 of the SARFAI:SI Act are complied with and it was duty cast upon the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets secured. The appellant aggrieved filed the present appeal.

Sh. Rajeev Gupta, Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has referred para no.4 and para no.6 (c) of the impugned order. Sh. Gupta argued that as per para no.4 of the impugned order, the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAI:SI Act was not issued to all the concerned parties as the respondent no.1 only placed the postal receipts but the tracking report of the service is not placed on record. It was also argued that the respondent no.1 also issued subsequent demand notice dated 06.09.2023, as such, the earlier demand notice has been implied withdrawn by the respondent no.1 and cannot be basis of the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Sh. Gupta further argued that the notice under Section 14 of the Act was not properly served and addressed to all the appellants. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

Sh. Prashant Kumar Pandey, Counsel for the respondent no.1 stated that the symbolic possession of the secured assets was taken and thereafter put to auction and after auctioned, the sale certificate has already been issued in favour of respondent no.2 who is stated to be the auction purchaser. He further stated that the subsequent demand notice dated 06.09.2023 was issued by mistake and said issue was argued on behalf of the appellant and accordingly, decided by the DRT-Lucknow in the impugned order. It is further argued that the notice under Section 13(2) was properly served upon all the concerned parties.

Perusal of the impugned order reflects that the earlier demand notice dated 21.05.2021 was issued to all the concerned parties and postal receipts also placed on record. If the tracking report is not placed on record, it does not affect the issue of the service of demand notice dated 21.05.2021 upon all the concerned parties. It is also observed by the DRT-Lucknow that the subsequent demand notice dated 06.09.2023 was wrongly issued which was not pressed by the respondent no.1. Perusal of impugned order reflects that the DRT-Lucknow has considered and discussed all the relevant issues as raised on behalf of the appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Pre-deposit already made by the appellants shall be refunded back to the appellants as per rules.