Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Rekha Indur Chhugani vs Punjab National Bank on 13 November 2026
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.1, MUMBAI
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.
ORDER
In INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3148 OF 2026 In APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2026 (Delivered on 13.11.2026)
Rekha Indur Chhugani
...Applicant
Versus
Punjab National Bank
...Respondent
Advocate Rajesh Nagory a/w Adv. Aayush Kothari a/w Adv. Chandresh Rao for the Appellant.
Advocate Pankaj Vijayan a/w Adv. Tanvi Parkar i/b Intralegal for the Respondent.
Advocate Harsh Kesharia for the Respondent No.3 & 4.
ORDER
1. The appellants herein are seeking to stay the possession intended to be effected on 14.11.2026. Detailed arguments are addressed by all sides. But before considering the merits of the contentions, it is to be seen whether the action of respondent/bank intending to effect possession on a holiday as 14.11.2026 can be entertained by this Tribunal.
2. Without entering into the merits of the contentions of both sides, it has to be held that the possession intended to be effected on a holiday cannot be allowed.
3. Courts treat physical possession much more strictly than online auction, as coercive action on a court holiday directly impairs fundamental rights and access to justice. Here in this case 14.11.2026 is a Second Saturday which is a holiday for DRT and the banks. When a bank is executing a recovery certificate through DRT Recovery Officer, under Section 29 of RDB Act, the provisions of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Act apply as far as possible.
4. It is seen that the possession is intended to be effected on 14.11.2026 which is a holiday as Second Saturday both for DRT and bank as well as Hon'ble High Court. Section 29 of RDDB Act clearly permits adoption of Second and Third schedule of Income Tax Act. Rule 18 of Income Tax Act bars auction on Sunday and on holiday. Section 17(7) of SARFAESI Act, specifically directs that DRT shall as far as possible dispose off the applications in accordance with provisions of RDDB Act. Section 29 of RDDB Act is to the effect that the provisions of Second and Third schedule to the Income Tax Act shall as far as possible apply with necessary modifications, as if the said provisions and rules referred to the amount of debt due under the RDDB Act. So it is seen that the provision contained in Section 29 of the RDDB Act will be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of SARFAESI Act.
5. It is seen that Rule 18 is applicable to sale on Sunday. But the decision reported in Writ Petition (L) no. 5671/2024 dated 21.02.2024 directs, that a specific date must be mentioned and that date cannot be over a weekend, when Courts are unavailable to the affected persons. The decision further directs that, justice under our constitution must mean, the right to expect fair treatment from an administrative authority, and that access to justice cannot be an empty promise. So the said direction must be stated to be against coercive measures on holidays.
6. When the statutes direct the provisions in the SARFAESI Act are in addition and not in derogation of RDB Act, Section 29 of the RDB Act can safely be adopted here. So, in view of Section 29 of RDB Act which clearly permits adoption of provision of second and third schedule of Income Tax Act, Rule 18 of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act is applicable here.
7. As Second Saturday is a holiday for both banks and DRT, taking physical possession on a day when borrower cannot deposit money with bank or move an urgent application before DRT, is to be viewed as arbitrary with an attempt to cut at the root of the statutory remedies. So, the possession intended on 14.11.2026 has to be deferred. As stated above the merits of the contentions of parties are not considered at this stage and the possession is deferred for the sole reason that it is fixed on a holiday.
8. Therefore, by adopting the Rule 18 of the second schedule of Income Tax Act the respondent cannot be allowed to effect possession on 14.11.2026 which is a holiday as Second Saturday. It is open to the respondent to take steps to co-ordinate with the commissioner to issue a fresh notice for possession, taking care to see that the same shall not be effected on a Second Saturday or Sunday or on a declared holiday. If so desired, the respondent/bank can proceed to take steps for fixing the measure, on a regular working day by issuing a fresh notice. On that ground the possession now intended on 14.11.2026 is deferred giving liberty to respondent/bank to take proper steps in this regard. It is made clear that the merits of the contention of the parties are not addressed as of now, which will be considered if and when such a petition is moved subsequently.
9. The present petition as I.A. No. 3148 of 2026 is disposed off as above. Parties to suffer costs.
(Dictated to my Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me and pronounced in open forum on 13.11.2026)
Date: 13.11.2026
Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai-I (Sreekala Suresh)