M/S AMAR BOOKS STORE AND ANR. vs AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ORS on 7 October 2026

1. Appellants filed the S.A. beadrs no. 5412012 titles as Nrls An.r Book Store & .rother V State Bank of Patirls & othen which was stated to be pending before the DRT-I, Chandiseh DRTI, Chandigarb vide order daled 27.05 2013 allowed the SA in complimce to Rule 8(1) oflhe Securiry lnbresr (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and also di@ted the respondenl bank to rcstore the possession ofthe subject property within two weeks. The relevant portion of rhe order dated 27.05.2013 is reproduced as under: Accordingly, in view of noFco pliance oI Rule 8(1) of Seuritv Interest (f,nforcement) Rrles, 2002 as adnitted by ld. couDsel for the r€sPondenr b.nli, SA sfands illowed rnd respofldent bank is directed to restore the porsessior of the Properties in qu€stior withiD two w€ek The respondent b.rk will be .t liberty to i$ue fresh mtice for possBsion in ,ccordrnce with law.

2. Sh. Jitender Kumar, Counset for the respondent no. I stated that in compliance of order dated 27.05.2013 the possesion of lhe subj@t property was restored back to the appellants. The respondent no. I has also filed O A bearing no. 232120 I 2 which has alredy been decided vide finaljudgm€nt dat€d 23.01 2017 I1is also infomed that the appeal bearing no. 42512017 against the order daled 27 05.2013 was also disposed of on 19.01.2019.

-2-

3. The app€Uant filed M.A bearing no. 66/2017 after disposal oflhe S.A' bearing no. 54/2012 before DRTJ, Ch digarh for seeking compensalion for the loss suffered by the appellants on account of respondenl no.l in takins the possession ofthe secured assets. The M.A bearing no. 66/2024 was ordered to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.10.2026. The releva portion of the order h Heard both sides rDd peruied record. It is flct that the Blnkwho is still strtrggling hard fo. recover of its dues through filiDg of OA which is pending lor more thaD three verB' the Applicrrt has fail€d to pay a single penny after getlitrg the fsvourable orders from this TribuD.l wlen their SA wis rllowed and possssion l as restored. Not oDly this, the matter was referred to Lok Adtl.t but even th€n the Appticrnts did trot chose to settle the mltt€r. lt seens that the Applicrnt! though hld.dnitted th€ir default yet did notwtrt to pay the d;es. The Bitrkt rctior utrder the SARTAESI Act finding Do merit due to lapses and deticiercy lnay hive been susPended' but the recoveries are yet to be determined. lt h$ also been observed thit eveD iD ihe OA no couDter cliim h.s been filed by the ApplicrDt So far as the merits ofthis MA is concerned, I do rot filed any such grcuDd in favotrr of the ApplicaDts pirticularly in tbe light of Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act as lhe Authorised Offi.er who h,s pmceed€d u er the rules was purelv in good f.ith. HeDc€, finding Do erit, th€ stDe is dismi$ed.

4. The appellants being aggieveC filed the present appeal. During the course of the arguments, il is argued that the order dated 03.10.2026 was passed agaiNt the law and facti as the respondeni has committei rhe breach of relev t prevision of rhe SARFAISI Act and relevani rules of Securitv lnlerest (Enforcenent) Rules, 2002. lt was also argued that ihe respondent has taken lhe possession of the secured assel illegally md unlawtully. lt is prayed thar the impugned order dated

03. 10.2026 be set-aside.

5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 03.10.2026 reflecls that after due consideEtion, lhe possession of the ecured asset was restored back 10 the appellants. The appellants have not paid any amouni lowards rhe satisfaction of the loan amolnt despite lhe case ws being refened in the Lok Adalat. Alihough in the SA bearins .o. 54/2012 the fai. opponunity was grmted in favour of the -:3r appellants but the appella s have noi paid even a single permy towards the

6. The DRTI, Chandigarh in the impugned order ha! considered all lhe relevanl facts. There is no inegularity or illegality in lhe impuSned order passed by the DRT which wararts any interferenc€ by this Tribunal Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The prcieposil as already made by the appellants be retunded bek along with accrued interest as per ihe rules and after proper verification (Dr. Justicc Sudhi. Ktrmar Jaitr) ChairPerson