Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
N. AZEEZ RAHMAN vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 1 September 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 1298/2026 (Urgent) in IA 1299/2026(Waiver) in A.IR:2327/2026
Azeez Rahman V/S Punjab National Bank & 3 Ors 01/09/2026
Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, this urgent application is allowed.
IA 1299/2026 (Waiver) Mr. S. Jayaprakash, learned counsel offers to file Vakalath for R4. This matter is taken up on urgent mentioning. This appeal is filed against the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai in NDN (SA) 1066/2026, on 22.07.2026. The aforesaid securitization application has been filed to set aside the entire sale proceedings culminated into sale certificate dated 09.02.2002 issued by the first respondent in favour of the 4th respondent and registered as document No.3488/ 2026 on 30.06.2026 with SRO, Walaja, Ranipet District. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not aware of the SARFAESI proceedings starting from issuance of demand notice under Section 13 (2) and notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, if any and also the sale notice. Therefore, only on coming to know about the registration of sale certificate securitization application has been filed. The Registry of DRT-II, Chennai raised objections with regard to maintainability of the securitization application as follows:- Challenging the sale certificate is not a cause of action u/s 13 (4) – clarify? SA filed with delay of 69days. Hence COD petition along with fee has to be filed. Learned Presiding Officer, agreeing with the objections raised, held that the sale certificate dated 11.03.2026 came to be registered on 30.06.2026 and the limitation should have been reckoned from the date on which, the impugned measure under Section 13 (4) is taken and that the securitization application has been presented beyond the prescribed period reckoned from the relevant measures under Section 13 (4). No application seeking condonation of delay supported by the affidavit and accompanied by the prescribed fee, has been filed.
Thus, the objection of the Registry is upheld. However, there is no final order as to whether the securitization application is rejected or not. Issue notice to respondents 1 to 3 for the hearing on 16.09.2026. Post the matter on 16.09.2026 for filing vakalath and counter if any, by then.
Sd/-
Chairperson