Salim Javed vs Punjab National Bank And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this petition is made to the sale notice dated 02.12.2024, which has been issued by the respondent no.1/Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”). The petitioner also seeks two months’ time for compliance of the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun (“DRT”). Ancillary reliefs have also been sought.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the petitioner, his brother had taken a loan from the respondent no.1/Bank. The petitioner was guarantor in the loan transaction. The borrower made default. Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated against the petitioner. The petitoner did appear before the DRT, Dehradun. On 28.03.2025, the DRT, Dehradun, passed an order, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 11,25,000/- on or before 05.04.2025, with other stipulations, which is as follows:-

“If the Applicant shall fail in repayment of the amount of Rs. 11,25,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) on or before 05.04.2025 the Respondent Bank shall be free for receiving remaining 75% of hte bid amount on or before 09.04.2025 i.e. after 05.04.2025 and the Applicant shall be entitled to receive back Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) only against the amount provided by the Applicant through Demand Draft of Rs. 2.00 Lakh. In case of non-payment of amount of Rs. 11,25,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) on or before 05.04.2025 the amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be treated as cost and the Respondent Bank shall be entitled for the said cost for additional exercise in this matter.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could not deposit entire Rs. 11,25,000/-. He could deposit only Rs. 8,25,000/-, but thereafter, the respondent no.1/Bank did not give any time to the petitioner and within 15 days issued the sale certificate.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/Bank would submit that when the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 28.03.2025, passed by the DRT, Dehradun, the respondent no.1/Bank proceeded to recover the amount. Auction notice had been issued, and, thereafter, sale certificate was issued on 11.04.2025.

The instant petition has no merit for acceptance. The petitioner was the guarantor. He was proceeded under the SARFAESI Act by the respondent no.1/Bank. The petitioner had challenged those proceedings before the DRT, Dehradun. As stated, on 28.03.2025, the DRT, Dehradun, directed the petitioner to deposit certain amount by a date fixed, to which the petitioner failed. In fact, the DRT, Dehradun, had categorically stated that failing in deposition of the money by the petitioner, the respondent no.1/Bank shall proceed further in the matter. That is what has been done by the respondent no.1/Bank. Now, it is stated that even the sale certificate has been issued.

If the petitioner had any grievance, he could have further approached DRT, Dehradun, which he did not. Therefore, having considered, this Court is of the view that in these proceedings, no interference is required. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.