{"id":367757,"date":"2025-11-26T14:00:20","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T08:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=367757"},"modified":"2025-12-05T09:49:00","modified_gmt":"2025-12-05T04:19:00","slug":"drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/","title":{"rendered":"Read why DRAT set aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank’s failure to prove personal service of S. 13(2) notice"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

DRAT Mumbai:<\/span> The present appeal is filed by the appellants to challenge the order passed in the Securitisation Application, that was filed by them to quash and set aside claim of the Respondent, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and to set aside the order dated 11-7-2014 of the District Magistrate. G. Chandrasekharan<\/span>, J., Chairperson, while allowing the appeal, set aside the order passed under Section 14<\/a> of the SARFAESI Act, 2002<\/a> by the District Magistrate, on the ground that the respondent bank failed to prove the personal service of Section 13(2) Demand Notice on the appellants and filing of Affidavit required under Section 14<\/a> of the SARFAESI Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The appellants, husband and wife entered into a Home Loan Agreement with CitiFinancial Consumer India Ltd. (‘CCFIL’) on 31-1-2008 and that the repayment schedule was later amended on 25-3-2009. At the appellants request, CCFIL issued a new repayment schedule on 16-1-2010, to enable early closure of the loan. The appellants claimed to have paid the entire loan and thus, the loan account was closed.<\/p>\n

According to the appellants, they were never informed about the assignment of the loan to the respondent bank, nor did they receive any notice under Section 13(2)<\/a> of the SARFAESI Act<\/a> or any information about proceedings initiated under Section 14. Therefore, the appellants filed the Securitisation Application, alleging that the loan had already been closed. They contended that the Presiding Officer failed to appreciate the evidence of loan closure, prompting the present appeal.<\/p>\n

The respondent bank submitted that the appellants availed five loans, out of which, three loan accounts were closed and the remaining two were pending with an outstanding amount of Rs. 28.13 lakh. Further, as per the appellants request, the said loan accounts were internally buyout and thus, new loan account for Rs. 28.13 lakh was created. Additional funds were later infused by CCFIL for 51.49 lakh in new loan account, thus, making the total loan amount of Rs. 79.62 lakh. The respondent bank submitted that the appellants disputed its claim only to avoid the loan repayment. As the dues were still pending, the bank did not release the original property documents.<\/p>\n

The bank had referred the matter to arbitration, and since the appellants failed to appear, despite the arbitrator sending a notice in that regard, an award was passed on 24-5-2010. Thereafter, Section 13(2) demand notice was issued and properly served<\/p>\n

The principal issue before the Tribunal is whether the respondent bank has validly served the mandatory Section 13(2) Demand Notice and complied with the statutory requirements under Section 14<\/a> of the SARFAESI Act<\/a>, specifically the filing of the 9-point affidavit by the Authorised Officer.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Tribunal noted that CCFIL has sent a notice dated 25-7-2012 informing about both the loans to the appellants, but no acknowledgement was produced for the proof of service of the said notice. The track consignment report did not prove the service of notice as the tracking report that was produced contained no delivery details; the delivery column was left blank, and the postal receipt reveal that the notice was dispatched to an incorrect pin code. As a result, there was no evidence of personal service.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal further observed that even in the petition filed before the District Magistrate, the appellants produced only postal receipt and copy of paper publication. Proof of service of personal notice was not produced. Thus, clearly showing that respondent bank failed to prove the service of Section 13(2) Demand Notice on the appellants. The Tribunal stated that personal service of Section 13(2) Demand notice on the appellants is necessary for initiating measures under Section 13(4)<\/a> of SARFAESI Act<\/a>. In the present case, there is no effort made to prove the service of Personal Demand Notice. Thus, when respondent bank failed to prove personal service of Demand Notice, all other consequential acts necessarily fail.<\/p>\n

Further, the Tribunal considered the appellants’ objection regarding the respondent’s failure to file the mandatory 9-point affidavit required under the amended Section 14<\/a> of the SARFAESI Act<\/a>. Relying on the Bombay High Court decision in Masscorpon. Ltd.<\/span> v. Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd.<\/span>, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2579<\/a>, the Tribunal noted that the District Magistrate is required to satisfy himself with the contents of the affidavit before passing final order. Since the respondent bank had not filed the said affidavit before the District Magistrate for him to satisfy and pass order, the impugned order cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Tribunal set aside the order passed under Section 14<\/a> of the SARFAESI Act<\/a> by the District Magistrate on the ground that the respondent bank failed to prove the personal service of Section 13(2) demand notice and filing of affidavit under Section 14. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, with liberty granted to the respondent bank to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

[Mohammed Hanif Syed v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine DRAT 468<\/a>, decided on 15-9-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For Appellant:<\/span> Anita Castilano, Counsel<\/p>\n

For Respondent:<\/span> Sanjay Anabhawane, Counsel<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“It was observed that even in the petition filed before the District Magistrate, the appellants produced only postal receipt and copy of paper publication, and proof of service of personal notice was not produced.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67522,"featured_media":367758,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[93373,93376,93371,93375,93377,93374,11421,93372,31835],"class_list":["post-367757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-9-point-affidavit","tag-invalid-sarfaesi-proceedings","tag-justice-g-chandrasekharan","tag-mandatory-statutory-compliance","tag-personal-service-of-demand-notice","tag-personal-service-of-notice","tag-sarfaesi-act","tag-section-132-demand-notice","tag-section-14"],"yoast_head":"\nDRAT quashes order over lack of proof of personal service of S. 13(2) notice|SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"DRAT sets aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove ersonal Ssrvice of Section 13(2) demand notice and non-filing of mandatory affidavit.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Read why DRAT set aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove personal service of S. 13(2) notice\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"DRAT sets aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove ersonal Ssrvice of Section 13(2) demand notice and non-filing of mandatory affidavit.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-11-26T08:30:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-05T04:19:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Personal-Service-of-Section-132-Notice.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"533\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Niyati\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Read why DRAT set aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove personal service of S. 13(2) notice\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Niyati\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/\",\"name\":\"DRAT quashes order over lack of proof of personal service of S. 13(2) notice|SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Personal-Service-of-Section-132-Notice.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-11-26T08:30:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-05T04:19:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/9fcdd3f9b1656d3c86b93c274ac0851e\"},\"description\":\"DRAT sets aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove ersonal Ssrvice of Section 13(2) demand notice and non-filing of mandatory affidavit.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Personal-Service-of-Section-132-Notice.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Personal-Service-of-Section-132-Notice.webp\",\"width\":800,\"height\":533,\"caption\":\"Personal Service of Section 13(2) Notice\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Read why DRAT set aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank’s failure to prove personal service of S. 13(2) notice\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/9fcdd3f9b1656d3c86b93c274ac0851e\",\"name\":\"Niyati\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3fb20d70fc1002554a7094c80f8d54c0f3dad0fd7c5b119db6833ce4c54a5115?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3fb20d70fc1002554a7094c80f8d54c0f3dad0fd7c5b119db6833ce4c54a5115?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Niyati\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/niyati\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"DRAT quashes order over lack of proof of personal service of S. 13(2) notice|SCC Times","description":"DRAT sets aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove ersonal Ssrvice of Section 13(2) demand notice and non-filing of mandatory affidavit.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Read why DRAT set aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove personal service of S. 13(2) notice","og_description":"DRAT sets aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove ersonal Ssrvice of Section 13(2) demand notice and non-filing of mandatory affidavit.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-11-26T08:30:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-05T04:19:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Personal-Service-of-Section-132-Notice.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Niyati","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Read why DRAT set aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove personal service of S. 13(2) notice","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Niyati","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/","name":"DRAT quashes order over lack of proof of personal service of S. 13(2) notice|SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Personal-Service-of-Section-132-Notice.webp","datePublished":"2025-11-26T08:30:20+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-05T04:19:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/9fcdd3f9b1656d3c86b93c274ac0851e"},"description":"DRAT sets aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank's failure to prove ersonal Ssrvice of Section 13(2) demand notice and non-filing of mandatory affidavit.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Personal-Service-of-Section-132-Notice.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Personal-Service-of-Section-132-Notice.webp","width":800,"height":533,"caption":"Personal Service of Section 13(2) Notice"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/26\/drat-quashes-order-over-lack-of-proof-of-personal-service-of-s-132-notice\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Read why DRAT set aside S. 14 SARFAESI order over bank’s failure to prove personal service of S. 13(2) notice"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/9fcdd3f9b1656d3c86b93c274ac0851e","name":"Niyati","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3fb20d70fc1002554a7094c80f8d54c0f3dad0fd7c5b119db6833ce4c54a5115?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3fb20d70fc1002554a7094c80f8d54c0f3dad0fd7c5b119db6833ce4c54a5115?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Niyati"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/niyati\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Personal-Service-of-Section-132-Notice.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":368484,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/03\/tribunal-and-commissions-november-2025-roundup-dead-worm-in-veg-biriyani-rajasthan-bus-fire-tragedy\/","url_meta":{"origin":367757,"position":0},"title":"Tribunals and Commissions November 2025 | Dead worm found in Veg Biryani; Disallowance deleted in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan case; Rajasthan bus fire tragedy; & more","author":"Editor","date":"December 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Explore the key legal developments of November 2025, featuring CCI's power to examine patented product disputes, dead worm found in Veg Biryani, deletion of disallowance against Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, grieving father bribing ambulance, woman's death at Jammu-based Super Specialty Hospital and Rajasthan bus fire tragedy.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tribunals and Commissions November 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-November-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-November-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-November-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-November-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":197587,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/27\/section-17-of-sarfaesi-act-provides-remedy-before-drt-against-the-order-of-district-magistrate\/","url_meta":{"origin":367757,"position":1},"title":"Section 17 of SARFAESI Act provides remedy before DRT against the order of District Magistrate","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 27, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a matter arising under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, a Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta, CJ and Atul Sreedharan, J. allowed a writ appeal and set aside the Orders of the learned Single Judge as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":106861,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/02\/15\/inform-debtor-before-commencing-with-auction-sale-of-his-security-allahabad-hc-quashes-drat-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":367757,"position":2},"title":"Inform debtor before commencing with auction sale of his security, Allahabad HC quashes DRAT order","author":"Saba","date":"February 15, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court:\u00a0The petitioner before the Court appealed against the order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was serving in Punjab National Bank, Branch Mahmoorganj, Varanasi. During his service period, he availed a housing loan of Rs. 10 lacs in the year 2007 for construction of house and deposited\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":281546,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/13\/set-aside-order-of-telangana-high-court-which-set-aside-order-drt-possession-sale-notice-issued-indian-bank-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":367757,"position":3},"title":"Only a secured property used as agricultural land can be exempted under SARFAESI Act; Supreme Court sets aside Telangana High Court’s order","author":"Editor","date":"January 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court opined that instead of shifting the burden of proof on the secured creditor to prove that the secured property was not agricultural property, the Telangana High Court should have laid down the burden of proof on the borrowers.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"agricultural land","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-71.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":351443,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/25\/calcutta-high-court-dm-upholds-uco-bank-sarfaesi-application-rejected-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":367757,"position":4},"title":"Calcutta High Court upholds rejection of UCO Bank\u2019s SARFAESI application by District Magistrate over Affidavit defects","author":"Arunima","date":"June 25, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court observed that since the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, is not ministerial and not adjudicatory, such defects cannot be cured retrospectively or assumed to be merely procedural.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"UCO Bank SARFAESI application rejection","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/UCO-Bank-SARFAESI-application-rejection.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/UCO-Bank-SARFAESI-application-rejection.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/UCO-Bank-SARFAESI-application-rejection.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/UCO-Bank-SARFAESI-application-rejection.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":344645,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/29\/magistrates-jurisdiction-section-14-sarfaesi-act-kerala-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":367757,"position":5},"title":"Magistrate\u2019s jurisdiction under S. 14 of SARFAESI Act doesn\u2019t involve adjudication; passing orders in printed format with just filled-in details is unjustifiable: Kerala HC","author":"Apoorva","date":"March 29, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe power under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act has significant consequences, which is why it is entrusted to high-ranking officials like the District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367757","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67522"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=367757"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367757\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/367758"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=367757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=367757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=367757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}