Animesh Mishra and Anr vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 14 October 2026

1. Present : Mr. Rajesh Nagori i/b Ms. Sanjana Ghogare, Counsel for Appellants. Ms. Savita Nangare along with Mr. Vinod N. & Ms. Disha Shah i/b M/s. Law Focus, Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank. Mr. Mohit S., Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

2. At the very inception it would be apposite to mention that vide order dated 28.09.2026 the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 12753/2026, filed by the Appellant/Borrower had directed this Appellate Tribunal to decide the I.A. No. 557/2026 for waiver on the pre-deposit and the Application (Diary) No. 1694/2026 Now registered as I.A. No. 592/2026, for ad-interim stay of the impugned order in this appeal on 05.10.2026 in urgent category and to decide this application on or before 14.10.2026.

3. It would be pertinent to note that I.A. No. 557/2026 has been decided by this Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 05.10.2026. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank files a reply to the interim application. The same is taken on record.

4. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for parties would submit that the hearing on I.A. No. 592/2026 shall involve all the points that are taken as grounds of Regular Appeal No. 75/2026, in which I.A. No. 592/2026 has been filed, therefore, arguments may be heard on the Regular Appeal itself and same be disposed of.

5. Heard.

Submission by Appellants/Borrowers :

6. submit that the Appellants/Borrowers had filed Securitization Application No. 280/2022 before the Learned DRT, seeking main reliefs, inter alia, as under :

(i) To set aside the measures taken by the Respondents under the SARFAESI Act, 2002;

(ii) To set aside the sale certificate dated 04.07.2022;

(iii) To restrain the Respondents from taking any further steps towards the sale of the secured assets under the SARFAESI Act,

2002;

(iv) To set aside the order passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Borrowers would further submit that vide impugned order dated 31.08.2026 the Ld. DRT-3 Mumbai dismissed the securitization application, hence this appeal.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Borrowers would further contend that the impugned order is legally unsustainable on, inter alia, the following grounds:

(i) Respondent No. 1/Bank did not issue a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the co-borrower/co-owner of the secured asset.

(ii) The demand notice dated 13.03.2019 was not served upon the Appellants/Borrowers at his address in Atlantis Building, but served at Ambika Complex notwithstanding the fact that Respondent No. 1/Bank was aware that at the time of issuance of notice under section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, the Appellants/Borrowers were residing at Atlantis Building.

(iii) The Demand Notice dated 13.03.2019 issued under

Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, suffers from the defect as the same was not issued by the Chief Manager of the lending Bank.

(iv) The demand notice dated 13.03.2019 does not specifically and clearly set out the break-up of the amount demanded.

(v) The Learned DRT erred in observing that, once the Appellants/Borrowers had submitted a one-time settlement proposal, the objections raised by him shall tantamount to have been waived. The Learned Counsel would contend that submission of a one-time settlement proposal cannot defeat or override the specific provisions of law.

Submission By Respondent No.1/Bank :

9. Per Contra, the Respondent/Bank would submit that the Counsel for Appellant/Borrower has not adverted to the main grounds which the Ld. DRT had made for the rejection of this Securitization Application of the Appellants/Borrowers and that ground is that main relief prayed for was barred by limitation. She would further submit that the Securitization Application of the Appellants/Borrowers was dismissed on various grounds and mainly on the ground of limitation ; that , in Para No. 32 of the order, the Ld. DRT has specifically stated that the Appellants/Borrowers did not approach Debt Recovery Tribunal within 45 days from the date when the interim measure was taken.

10. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would further submit that the reliefs sought by way of amendment were barred by limitation ; that , the order passed by the Learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which the Appellants/Borrowers sought to challenge and have quashed, was not placed on record in the Securitization Application, therefore, in the absence of the said order being placed on record, the relief seeking its quashing could not properly be considered and allowed.

11. The Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank would further submit that no reply was sent by the Appellant/Borrower to the notice of Respondent No.1/Bank send under section 13 (2) dated 13.03.2019. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would further submit that the notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 13.03.2019 was published on 06.04.2019 in two newspapers and pasted on the property, even then no reply was sent by the Appellants/Borrowers.

12. Referring to paragraph 5.5 of the Securitization Application, she would submit that the Appellants/Borrowers had themselves acknowledged the knowledge of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 at the address to which it had been sent. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank would further submit that symbolic possession of the secured asset was taken on

04.06.2019 and a public notice in that regard was published in the newspapers on 07.06.2019, however, the Appellants/Borrowers did not submit any objection or reply to Respondent No. 1/Bank to the same. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank would further submit that attempts were made to auction the secured asset on ten occasions between 07.06.2019 and January 2022, and notices concerning the said attempts were published in newspapers. Despite the same, the Appellants/Borrowers did not raise any objection in that regard. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would further submit that only the second-last notice dated 09.06.2021 for e-auction published in newspapers was challenged by the Appellant/Borrower by way of filing the present Securitization Application and the same was unsuccessful attempt of sale. But the auction was done on next sale notice but the same was not challenged.

The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would contend that, instead of challenging the final sale notice dated 24.01.2022, which culminated in the auction in favour of the auction purchasers, the Appellant/Borrower filed the Securitization Application on 18.04.2022, challenging an earlier notice dated 09.06.2021, pursuant to which the auction had been unsuccessful.

13. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would further submit that on 04.09.2019 the Respondent No. 1/Bank took the symbolic possession under section 13 (4) of the secured asset and published the symbolic possession on 07.06.2019 in two newspapers namely Free Press Journal and Nav Shakti ; that , thereafter the Respondent Bank conducted the proceedings for auction on several dates viz on 12.07.2019, 30.09.2019, 27.01.2020, 16.03.2020, 21.03.2020, 29.06.2021, 28.10.2021, 26.11.2021, 24.12.2021 and 18.01.2022 ; that however the Appellants/Borrower did not challenge any of these auction notices despite the full knowledge of the same.

Finally Respondent No.1/Bank issued sale notice for the auction on 15.02.2022 and same was published on 28.01.2022 ; that , the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were the successful bidder and they paid complete auction price by 13.05.2022. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank would further submit that the Appellants/Borrowers filed the Securitization Application No. 280/2022 and in this, the primary challenge was the e-auction sale notice dated 09.06.2021 whereas the successful e- auction in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 was in pursuance of the sale notice for auction dated 15.02.2022 which was published on 28.01.2022. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank would further emphasize that in the original i.e. unamended Securitization Application there was no challenge to the sale notice which was issued in February, 2022 which culminated into the successful auction.

The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank would further submit that the order under section 14 was passed on 03.10.2022 but there was no challenge to the same by the Appellant/Borrower ; that , on 30.08.2025 , the Appellants/Borrowers filed an application I.A. No. 2612/2025 for the amendment for incorporating the amendment in Securitization Application and by way of this amendment which was allowed on 30.08.2026, the prayer to declare the sale certificate dated 04.07.2022 in favour of the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 was prayed to be quashed and set aside. As this prayer was made at very belated stage and much beyond the period of limitation, therefore this prayer relief was denied as barred by limitation. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Bank would further submit that the Amendment Application I.A. No. 2612/2025 was allowed by Ld. DRT keeping all the issues and contentions open to the Respondents.

14. The Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled “ARCE Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v/s Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd & Ors. (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 221” on the point that when the Appellant/Borrower gives the one-time settlement without making any reply objections to the demand notice then it would tantamount to waiving all his rights to challenge the same.

The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank would further rely upon another judgment “ Bachhaj Nahar v/s Nilima Mandal & Anr. 2008 SCC Online SC 1445” and would submit that specific no pleading regarding the illegality and incorrectness of notice under section 13 (2) and 13(4) is made in Securitization Application then this issue can not be raised either in the hearing before this Tribunal or in the appeal.

The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank would further rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court “ K.V.V. Prasad Rao Gupta v/s State Bank of India, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 328.”

Submission By Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 :

15. The Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 would submit that he would adopt the arguments of the Respondent No.1/Bank; that, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have deposited entire of auction amount out of hard-earned money therefore then right under the sale have become final and that can not be shaken.

Rebuttal By Appellants/Borrowers :

16. In rebuttal, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Borrowers would submit that, insofar as service of the demand notice is concerned, Respondent No. 1/Bank had not placed any material on record to establish that the notice had been returned undelivered with the postal endorsement “unclaimed”.

17. Considered and perused the record.

18. First ground of appeal which Appellants/Borrowers took that the Respondent No.1/Bank did not issue the notice under section 13

(2) of SARFAESI Act to the Appellant No. 2/Co-borrower and Co- owner of the secured asset. The Argument No. 2 of Appellants/Borrowers is that the demand notice dated 13.03.2019 was not served upon the Appellants/Borrowers at their address of Atlantis Building where they were residing at that time.

It is evident from the averment made in Securitization Application that the notice issued under section 13 (2) was very much in the knowledge of the Appellants/Borrowers. These grounds of appeal do not have any force in view of their own averment made in Para No. 5.5 that they found the notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act affixed on their flat. The important thing for service of any notice is to bring a certain fact in the knowledge of any person and identity with address of the sender. Therefore, this is not necessary to go into details that at the relevant time of service of this notice where the Appellants/Borrowers were residing and at what address the notice was addressed. In their own admission in para no. 5.5 of Securitization Application, the Appellants/Borrowers were having knowledge of the notice under section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act. It is also important to observe that notices were published in newspapers also.

19. It would not be out of place to observe that even the Para No. 5.6 of the Securitization Application the Appellants/Borrowers have averred that through an agent , namely Auction King , the Appellants/Borrowers learnt that the auction sale notice dated 09.06.2021 has been uploaded on the website of the Respondent and published in the local Marathi Newspaper named “Nav Shakti” scheduled for auction on 29.06.2021.

20. The third ground of appeal for the Appellants/Borrowers have submitted is that the demand notice dated 13.03.2019 suffers from the defects of not being issued by the Chief Manager of the lending bank.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Borrower would draw attention of this Appellate Tribunal to the notice dated 13.03.019 under section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act.

However, the circumspect perusal of the Securitization Application would reflect that this ground has not been pleaded in the Securitization Application at all. Therefore, there was no occasion for adjudication on this point in the absence of any pleading. Not taking this as a ground in the Securitization Application to assail the notice under section 13 (2) shall tantamount to acquiesce the same and therefore the Appellants/Borrowers are estopped from taking this point as a ground of Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal.

21. The last ground which the Counsel for the Appellants/Borrowers submitted to assail the impugned order is the observation made by the Learned DRT that submission of the One-Time-Settlement-Proposal by the Appellants/Borrowers shall tantamount to the waiver and acquiescence of all above these grounds raised.

However, the Learned Counsel, while making this argument, would not deny that the One-Time Settlement Proposal were made by the Appellants/Borrowers after the issuance of the above notices.

22. In the considered view of this Appellate Tribunal, not only such proposal by the Appellants/Borrowers shall amount to the acquiescence of these grounds being taken in this appeal but, as observed above, in the absence of any averment of these grounds i.e. non-service of the notice and no specific bifurcation of the amount and interest in the notice under section 13 (2) etc., shall mean that these grounds in appeal are taken for the shake of the arguments and these issues had not prejudiced the case of the Appellants/Borrowers. These grounds which were not taken in the Securitization Application shall be only technical.

23. Last but not least, the Ld. DRT in its impugned order has rejected the amended prayers 7(iiia) , 7(iiib) & 7(iiic) etc. on the grounds of the limitation.

24. It would be pertinent to note that these reliefs were added to the Securitization Application by way of amendment vide order dated 03.08.2026 on the amendment application of the Appellants/Borrowers I.A. No. 2612/2025. This Application I.A. No. 2612/2025 was filed by the Appellants/Borrowers on or after

30.08.2025.

25. By this amendment application, a relief to declare the sale certificate dated 04.07.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank in favour of the Respondent No.2 and 3 is illegal and to quash was prayed for.

It is important to note that this relief was prayed after more than three years and one month from the date of issuance of sale certificate on 04.07.2022, that is, much beyond the period of limitation to challenge any impugned action.

26. It would not be out of place here to observe that at the time of allowing the amendment, there was an observation in order dated 03.08.2026 by the Ld. Tribunal that this amendment was allowed keeping all issues and contentions open to the Respondents.

27. The Learned Lower Tribunal in its impugned order has dealt with the issue of limitation in details.

It observed that section 17 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 requires an aggrieved person to approach the tribunal within 45 days from the date of which the aggrieved measure was taken. It further observed that initially, on the sale notice on 09.06.2021 was challenged by way of Securitization Application and consequently by way of amendment, the sale certificate dated 04.07.2022 was challenged by filing the amendment application dated 30.08.2026. Therefore, the amended relief sought were barred by the limitation.

28. It is also important to note that in the amendment application, allowed by the Ld. DRT, there was no averment by the Appellants/Borrowers that they were not in knowledge of the sale certificate dated 04.07.2022.

29. In view of the above, this Appellate Tribunal does not find any incorrectness in the impugned order on the point that this relief sought by the Appellants/Borrowers were time-barred.

30. It would not be out of place to observe that this secured asset was not sold in the first auction itself but after repeated unsuccessful attempts for sale it in auction and every time the e-auction notice was published in the newspaper, even the notice under section 13 (2) etc. were also published in the newspaper. Even the copy of the order passed u/s 13 (4) was not filed.

31. In view of the above, this Appellate Tribunal does not find any illegality and incorrectness in the impugned order dated 31.08.2026 passed in Securitization Application No. 280/2022 filed by the Appellants/Borrowers. Therefore, the impugned order is affirmed to be correct.

32. Accordingly, the Appeal No. 75/2026 Animesh Mishra & Anr. V/s Punjab National Bank is dismissed.

33. All pending I.As., if any, stand dismissed. Sd/- Chairperson 14.10.2026 VKC-04