PUNJAB AND SIND BANK vs M/S JASSAR ALLOYS on 13 August 2026

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH APPEAL/2/2025 PUNJAB AND SIND BANK VERSUS M/S JASSAR ALLOYS AND OTHERS

13.08.2026 Supplemantry Item No.1

Argued by: Mr. Saurav Goyal, Counsel for the Appellant Bank. Mr. Yogesh Kumar and Mr. Sachin Sharma, Counsel for Borrowers Mr. Virender Sood, Counsel for Auction Purchaser.

Punjab and Sind Bank (Appellant) has filed this Appeal against the order dated 04.04.2025, whereby the Recovery Officer-I, DRT-I, Chandigarh has declined to confirm the e-auction dated 13.12.2021 and directed the Bank to return all the EMD and other amounts so deposited by Mandeep Dhawan along with saving bank interest from the date of deposit.

2. Bank in the Appeal has alleged that the auction was conducted as per the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the Recovery Officer and the subsequent Proclamation of Sale (POS) issued on 27.10.2021. The POS was duly published by the Bank in the newspapers. Recovery Officer has erred in recording that the auction timing was reduced from 05:00 PM to 04:00 PM. Earlier, the Recovery Officer had issued the Proclamation of Sale on 04.10.2021 stating that the sale would be conducted through e-auction. In paragraph 3 of the POS, it was recorded that, in the absence of any order of postponement, the property would be sold on 13.12.2021 between 12:00 PM and 12:30 PM. Again, in para 8 of the POS, it was mentioned that each intended bidder was required to deposit the EMD with the Recovery Officer,

DRT-I, Chandigarh. Further, in the last paragraph of the POS, it was mentioned that the last date for receiving bids along with earnest money and uploading documents, including proof of payment, was 10.12.2021 up to 04:00 PM. It is stated that as per the contents of the order dated 04.10.2021 and POS dated 27.10.2021, the Bank published the terms and conditions pursuant to the auction dated 13.12.2021. Accordingly, the order of the Recovery Officer setting aside the auction is illegal. It is further stated that earlier, the sale notice for the auction dated 16.04.2021 had been issued. It is stated that no illegality was committed by Mandeep Dhawan in depositing the money. Regarding the issue of authorization and conduct of the auction, it is submitted that the Bank had received an e-mail from the successful bidder authorizing Ramesh Kumar to participate in the auction proceedings. Both Mandeep Dhawan and Ramesh Kumar had appeared before the Recovery Officer. The affidavit dated 26.12.2024 substantiates this fact. The auction proceedings were duly completed by Ramesh Kumar. It is submitted that the property valuation was reduced by the Recovery Officer from Rs.1,47,66,880/- to Rs.1,10,75,160/-, and the reasons for the same were recorded in the order dated 04.10.2021. Accordingly, the Recovery Officer committed grave error in setting aside the auction. Accordingly, it is stated that the impugned order be set aside and the auction dated 13.12.2021 be declared valid and lawful and, consequently, Sale Certificate be issued in favour of Mandeep Dhawan.

3. Notice of the appeal was given to the auction purchaser and the borrowers. The borrowers, in their reply, have alleged that the appeal

is time-barred. It is stated that the limitation for filing the appeal expired on 03.05.2025. Bank had filed an incomplete and blank appeal on 03.05.2025 with an intention to create an illusion of filing the appeal. The said appeal remained pending for scrutiny for several months, and no complete or legally maintainable appeal was on record during the said period. The matter was put up before the Presiding Officer on 15.01.2026 for issuance of notice. On the appeal being listed, the borrowers applied for a certified copy of the appeal record. On a perusal of the record, it was revealed that the appeal filed by the Bank was incomplete, blank, defective, and devoid of complete pleadings. The certified copies revealed that the complete appeal, along with the affidavit of Ajay Kumar, Bank Officer, dated 29.11.2025, was filed subsequently. The earlier incomplete and blank appeal was accompanied by the affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar dated 03.05.2025. There is an unexplained and inordinate delay from 03.05.2025 till 29.11.2025 in filing the proper and complete appeal. The order of the Recovery Officer is eminently just. It is stated that the POS dated 27.10.2021 did not contain any bank account number for the deposit of EMD. The appellant Bank, before obtaining any permission, clarification, or amendment from the Recovery Officer, inserted and published the account details in the newspaper. The Bank was bound to strictly follow the terms and conditions of the POS and had no authority to unilaterally add or import terms from any earlier auction notice dated 04.04.2021. The alleged auction purchaser also failed to comply with the mandatory terms and conditions of the POS. The deposit of poundage fees is mandatory, and non-compliance

thereof goes to the root of the matter. The Recovery Officer did not give any permission for the same, and no timely communication was made by the certificate-holder Bank to the Recovery Officer regarding the existence of a valid bidder and compliance with the auction conditions. The auction was not conducted in a transparent and fair manner. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the appeal, and the same be dismissed.

4. Mr. Goyal, counsel for the Bank, and Mr. Virender Sood, counsel for the auction purchaser, have pointed out that the Recovery Officer has not held that the auction is illegal. Nobody had filed any objections. The Recovery Officer has himself raised the objections. There was no error or fraud in conducting the auction. There were only procedural irregularities. The auction purchaser is ready to deposit the poundage fees. The auction purchaser is a bona fide purchaser. Accordingly, it is stated that the impugned order be set aside.

5. Mr. Yogesh Kumar and Mr. Sachin Sharma, counsel for the borrowers, has submitted that the impugned order is eminently just. There is no merit in the appeal, and the same deserves to be dismissed

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Recovery Officer has declined to confirm the auction on the ground that the Bank had made unauthorized alterations in the terms and conditions of the auction; there was no authorization by Mandeep Dhawan in favour of Ramesh Kumar; and that the auction purchaser had not deposited

the money with the Recovery Officer but had deposited the same with the Bank, against the terms and conditions of the auction.

8. I am of the considered view that, first of all, the appeal is time- barred. Be that as it may, the poundage fee was not deposited. Bank has unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of the auction. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed. All the pending IAs, if any, are also stand disposed of accordingly. Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh Pronounced in open court

Dated: 13.08.2026 PANKAJ