Back
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson
Bansidhar Behera – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of loan default, npa, notices, auction, possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. drt findings upheld bank procedures and notices. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. parties' contentions on notices, rules violation, limitation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. sa timely for section 14 but other reliefs time-barred. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. drt erred in not deciding limitation and section 14; remanded. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT : 19t December, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : Instant Appeal has arisen against a judgment and order dated 7 February, 2025 passed by Learned DRT Cuttack dismissing the S.A. No. 161 of 2023 (Banshidhar Behera and others versus Authorised Officer Punjab National Bank and others)
2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned - order, Securitisation Applicant preferred the Appeal.
3. As per pleadings of the parties, Appellant is the guarantor who mortgaged the secured assets with the Respondent Bank. A total amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank for construction of the house. There were some defaults and the account was classified as NPA during pandemic period. Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereina
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
