Shri Vijay Kumar Rai vs UCO Bank & Anr.

The present case was heard and reserved for orders by this Tribunal vide order dated 14.07.2026.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the possession notice issued by the bank is non-est in the eye of law, because the said notice contains the date of demand notice as 17.07.2019, when no such demand notice exists. It was further contended that in the publication of the possession notice, the date of demand notice is 31.05.2018, which also does not exist, therefore, the possession notice issued by the Bank is not sustainable.

Learned counsel further submitted that the sale notice dated 08.08.2022 issued under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 2002 does not exist nor has ever been served upon the appellant. It was further contended that in fact, the respondent-Bank has issued the auction sale notice dated 10.08.2020 scheduling the auction of the property in question on 29.08.2022 and the same was served upon the appellant through registered post dated 11.08.2022 and the same was also published in the newspapers on 10.08.2022, which is clearly evident from the record itself and as such no right of redemption has been given by the Bank prior to the auction of the property in question. It was further contended that the said notice was not issued as per the provision of Rule 8(6), as no reserve price was mentioned in the same. It was thus contended that the Tribunal below has failed to consider the same and passed the order impugned, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. It was, therefore, prayed that the order impugned may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondent-bank submitted that mentioning of wrong date of demand notice in the possession notice is a typographical error, which causes no prejudice to the appellant, therefore, the same may be ignored while considering the matter on merits.

Learned counsel further submitted that the demand notice dated 17.09.2019 was served upon the appellant, which is evident from page no. 108 to 111 of the appeal and the annexure no. 1 to the reply of the Bank. It was further contended that the authorized officer of the Bank has issued the auction sale notice dated 08.08.2022 and not 10.08.2022 scheduling the auction of the property in question on 29.08.2022 and the same was served upon the appellant and published in the newspapers. It was further contended that the property was sold for Rs. 49,58,000/- in favour of the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel has referred to page nos. 116, 117 and 118 of the paper book, which are copies of sale notice and postal receipts. Learned counsel has further referred to page no. 121 and 122 of the paper book, which are copies of publication of sale notice. It was, thus, contended that the property has been sold in accordance with the Act and Rules made thereunder, which has also been held by the Tribunal below vide order impugned. It was, therefore, prayed that the order impugned may be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed with heavy costs.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Auction Purchaser has adopted the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, adding further that he is bonafide purchaser of the property in question and has deposited the entire sale consideration with the Bank in accordance with the Act and Rules made thereunder. It was, therefore, prayed that the order impugned may be affirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed with heavy costs.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties and perusal the material available on record.

The contention of the appellant that the possession notice is non-est, as the same contains the wrong date of the demand notice, is not tenable, because prior to issuance of possession notice, the demand notice was issued and sent to the appellant through registered post on 17.09.2019. Photocopy of the postal receipts is affixed on the demand notice itself, which is at page no. 9 of the reply of the Bank. Thus, if the demand notice had not been served upon the appellant, then the fate of wrong mentioning the date of demand notice in the possession notice would have been otherwise. In the present case, the appellant was well aware about the demand notice as well as its date, therefore, the possession notice containing the wrong date of demand notice does not matter and does not affect interest of the appellant in any manner, as the same is a typographical mistake done by the Bank while issuing the said notice, therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to take the benefit of such mistake, which has not caused any prejudice to him. Thus, the order impugned to this extant does not call for any interference by this Tribunal.

So far as the auction sale dated 29.08.2022 is concerned, it is to be seen that after obtaining the valuation report in respect of the property in question, the sale notice under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 2002 was issued on 10.08.2022 scheduling the auction of the property in question on 29.08.2022. The said notice was dispatched to the borrowers on 11.08.2022, copy of sale notice as well as postal receipts are placed at page no. 116 to 118 of the paper book. The sale notice at page no. 117 is of 08.08.2022, which is in Hindi, but the sale notice at page no. 116 of the paper book is of 10.08.2022, which is in English and the sale notice was published in two newspapers on 10.08.2022. Copies of the said publications are placed at page no. 121 and 122 of the said paper book. If the said notice was prepared on 10.08.2022 and the same was dispatched on 11.08.2022, then how it could have been published on 10.08.2022 in the newspapers. If it was so, then the said notice is post dated and it violates Rule 8(6) read with section 13(8) of the Act and Rules made thereunder. However, section 13(8) is being quoted herein below:-

The object of Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 2002 is to first provide an opportunity to the borrower for redeeming/saving his property within 30 days from the date of service of notice under the said Rule. As per provision of the section 13(8) as quoted above, this opportunity is available to the borrower till the date of publication of sale notice only. In the present case, sale notice was published prior to issuance/service of the same to the borrowers. Thus, the appellant-bank has curtailed the opportunity of the borrowers to redeem his property in question, which is against the provisions of the Rule 8(6) read with section 13(8) of the Act and Rules made thereunder. Thus, the Tribunal below has erred in setting aside the auction sale vide order impugned, therefore, the same to this extent is liable to be quashed.

In view of the discussions as recorded above, the order impugned to the extent of holding the auction sale dated 29.08.2022 pursuant to the sale notice dated 10.08.2022 and its subsequent actions to be valid and in accordance with the Act and Rules made thereunder is set aside and rest part of the same shall remain intact. The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs.

The respondent-Bank is directed to provide the details of outstanding amount to the appellant within 15 days from today, who shall pay the same within one month thereafter.

The respondent-Bank is further directed to return the auction amount to the auction purchaser along with 8% simple interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment.

In case, the appellant fails to deposit the outstanding amount as informed by the Bank within the time as stipulated above, the respondent-bank shall be at liberty to proceed for its recovery in accordance with the law from the stage of issuance of fresh sale notice.

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