Deepak Kumar Vs Authorised Officer (DRT Chandigarh)
The Securitization Application (SA) was filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking to set aside the demand notice issued under Section 13(2), the possession notice issued under Section 13(4), and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14. The applicants contended that their housing loan account became irregular during the COVID-19 period, that the Section 13(2) notice was not served upon one of the borrowers, the Section 13(4) possession notice was not served upon both borrowers, defects existed in the application filed under Section 14, and no notice was issued before the Magistrate passed the order. They also challenged the subsequent possession letters issued by the Tehsildar and alleged procedural irregularities.
The secured creditor opposed the SA, primarily contending that it was barred by limitation under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It submitted that the possession notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 22.05.2024, requiring any challenge to be filed within 45 days, whereas the SA was instituted on 11.09.2025 without any application seeking condonation of delay. The respondents further asserted that notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were duly served through registered post, supported by tracking reports, affixation and newspaper publication, and that the proceedings under Section 14 were conducted in accordance with law.
