INDEX

S.No. Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to Remar

which it belongs ks

PART I Part II
(Comment (Commen
s on a ts of file
Paper alone)
Book)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
1. Office Report A1
2. Listing Proforma A2 – A3
3. Cover Page of Paper Book A4
4. Index of Record of Proceedings A5
5. Limitation Report prepared by the
Registry
6. Defect List
7. Note Sheet
8. Synopsis and List of Dates B–Q
9. True copy of final impugned order 1–2
& judgement dated 11.12.2024, in
Appeal No. 289 of 2024, passed
by the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Delhi.
10. Special Leave Petition along with 3 – 13
Affidavit
11. ANNEXURE P-1: A True Copy 14 – 18
of lease agreement between
Petitioner and Respondent No. 4
12. ANNEXURE P-2: A true copy of 19 - 21
Notice dated 02.02.19, U/s 13(2)
of SARFAESI Act, 2002, issued
by respondent bank
13. ANNEXURE P-3: A true copy of 22 – 23
Notice dated 15.06.2019 issued
U/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act,
2002 issued by respondent bank
14. ANNEXURE P-4: A True Copy 24
of order dated 26.11.2019 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal at Shimla in C.W.P. No.
3786 of 2019
15. ANNEXURE P-5: A True Copy 25 - 26
of order dated 17.03.2021 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal at Shimla in C.W.P. No.
3786 of 2019
16. ANNEXURE P-6: A true copy of 27 - 61
Securitisation Application No.
66/2021 along with application
for condonation of delay, filed
before Ld. DRT
17. ANNEXURE P-7: A true copy of 62 - 64
order dated 30.07.2024 passed by
Ld. DRT-I, Chandigarh in S.A.
No. 66/21
18. ANNEXURE P-8: A true copy of 65 - 66
Order dated 02.09.2024 passed by
The Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal at Shimla in C.W.P. No.
9097 of 2024
19. ANNEXURE P-9: A true copy of 67 - 88
appeal No. 289/2024 filed before
Ld. Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi
20. I.A. No. _____ of 2025 89 – 93
[Application for exemption from
filing certified copy of final
impugned order/judgement]
21. Filling Memo 94
22. Vakalatnama 95
 A1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. _______________ OF 2025
[Against the final impugned order and judgement dated 11.12.2024, in Appeal
No. 289 of 2024, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi]

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S GANDHARV STONE CRUSHER …PETITIONER

VERSUS

A.O. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/are within limitation.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of ___ days in filling the

same against the impugned final order/judgement dated 11.12.2024, passed

by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, in Appeal No. 289 of 2024,

and application for condonation of ____ days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of ____ days in re-filling the present petition and an

application for condonation of ___ days delay in re-filling has been filed.

Dated: 16.02.2025 BRANCH OFFICER

Place: New Delhi
 A2

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

SECTION:
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):
Central Act: SARFAESI Act, 2002
Section : Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, 2002
Central Rule:
Rule No(s):
State Act:
State Rule:
Rule No.(s):
Impugned Interim Order:
Impugned Order/Decree: 11.12.2024
High Court:
Names of Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Tribunal/Authority: Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi

1. Nature of Matter: CIVIL

2. (a) Petitioner: M/s Gandharv Stone Crusher Through its Proprietor
Keshav Ram S/o Heera
(b) Email ID:
(c) Mobile Phone Number: +91
3. (a) Respondents:
(i) Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra, Circle Office, Raegent
House, The Mall, Shimla-171001 Through its Circle Sastra
Head

(ii) Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra,

Circle Office, Raegent House, The Mall, Shimla-171001

(iii) Vivek Gautam, S/o Sh. Munni Lal Gautam R/o Gautam
Niwas, Lathi Road, Near Senior Secondary School,
Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

(iv) Chaman Rakesh S/o Late. Sh. M.R. Azta R/o Dev Shanti
Kunj, North Oak, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

4. (a) Main/category classification: 2811

(b) Sub Classification:
5. Not to be listed before:
6. (a) Similar Disposed Of matter with citation, if
 A3

Any & case details : NO similar matter disposed.

7. Criminal Matters: N.A.
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: N.A
(b) FIR No.: N.A
(c) Police Station: N.A
(d) Sentence Awarded: N.A
(e) Sentence Undergone: N.A
(f) Whether any earlier case between the same parties is filed : N.A.
(g) Particulars of the FIR and Case : N.A.
(h) Whether any Bail Application was preferred earlier and decision
thereupon : N.A.

8. Land Acquisition Matters: N.A

(a) Date of Section 4 Notification: N.A
(b) Date of Section 6 Notification: N.A
(c) Date of Section 17 Notification: N.A

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N.A

10. Special Category (first Appellant/appellant only): N.A

Senior Citizen 65 years SC/ST Woman/Child Disabled Legal Aid Case In

custody: N.A

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): NA

12. Whether there was/is any litigation on the same point of law, if yes,
details thereof, : NO

FILED BY:

PLACE : NEW DELHI (DAWNEESH SHAKTIVATS)

DATE : 16.02.2025 Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner
AOR Code : 3483
 A4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. _______________ OF 2025
[Against the final impugned order and judgement dated 11.12.2024, in Appeal
No. 289 of 2024, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi]

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S GANDHARV STONE CRUSHER …PETITIONER

VERSUS

A.O. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

WITH

[I.A. NO. ________ OF 2025]

[Application for exemption from filing Certified copy of Impugned order]

PAPER-BOOK
(FOR INDEX: KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

(DAWNEESH SHAKTIVATS)
 A5

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S. NO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PAGES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.
 B

SYNOPSIS

The present Special Leave Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 136
read with Article 142 of the Constitution, being aggrieved by the judgement and
final order dated 11.12.2024, in Appeal No. 289 of 2024, (hereinafter referred to
as the “Impugned Order”) passed by the Ld. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. Appellate Tribunal”).

The Ld. Appellate Tribunal erroneously dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner on
hyper technical grounds of - limitation and non-compliance of a pre-deposit,
without appreciating the fact that the Petitioner was never given an opportunity
(both before the Ld. DRT as well as the Ld. DRAT) to present its case on merits.
The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the Ld. Appellate Tribunal
has been extracted hereinbelow:

“Appellant has filed the instant appeal against the impugned order
dated 30.07.2024 whereby its S.A. was dismissed by the Ld. DRT as
time-barred.

The appellant has not complied with the mandatory requirement of

pre-deposit. Ld. counsel for the appel1lant submits that she has filed an
application for waiver of pre-deposit (I.A. No. 1119/2024). She further
submits that appellant is not in a position to make the pre-deposit.

Heard. Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is clear and unambiguous and

states that appeal cannot be entertained without payment of pre-
deposit.
…
…
Thus, unless and until the appellant complied with the condition of pre-
deposit, this Tribunal cannot entertain the appeal. What to speak of this
Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt.
Ltd vs. Ambuj A Kasliwal & Ors., (2021) 3 SCC 549, has observed that
even the Hon'ble High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-
deposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion, which is against
 C

the mandatory requirements of the statutory provisions.

In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
appeal cannot be entertained for want of compliance of the condition
of pre-deposit.”

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner, an illiterate person, has suffered grave
prejudice at the hands of the Respondent Bank, Ld. DRT, and Ld. Appellate
Tribunal. The Petitioner had leased out the mortgaged property and, due to
circumstances beyond his control, could not immediately challenge the
SARFAESI proceedings initiated against him. Consequently, his Securitization
Application before the DRT was dismissed as time-barred, despite his Application
for Condonation of Delay, which ought to have been liberally considered in the
interest of justice, as held in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst.
Katiji & Ors., (1987) AIR 1353. This Hon’ble Court in that case emphasized that
courts should adopt a justice-oriented approach while considering applications
for condonation of delay.

Furthermore, it is submitted when the Petitioner attempted to pursue his statutory

remedy before the DRAT, his appeal was dismissed solely for non-compliance
with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 18 of SARFAESI, despite his
financial hardship and his application for waiver of pre-deposit. It is humbly
submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 11 SCC 440, has categorically held that while the pre-
deposit requirement under S. 18 is mandatory, DRAT has the discretion to reduce
it to 25% in deserving cases.

It is humbly submitted that the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, in the present case, failed
to exercise this discretion, resulting in the complete foreclosure of the Petitioner’s
right to appeal. Similarly, in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International
Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court stressed that
 D

SARFAESI proceedings must be conducted fairly and should not deprive

borrowers of their statutory rights through procedural rigidity.

It is humbly submitted that most recently, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in
Lalit Kulthia v. Commissioner of Customs, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3757
recognized that in rare and deserving cases, a waiver of the pre-deposit can be
granted when a clear justification is made out. The Hon’ble Court acknowledged
that the principle laid down in Pioneer Corporation v. Union of India, 2016 SCC
OnLine Del 6758 allows for waiver in exceptional circumstances.

The Petitioner’s case is one such exceptional case, where he has been deprived of
his right to seek justice solely due to procedural barriers, without any
consideration of the merits of his case. The combined effect of these two
dismissals has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice, leaving the Petitioner
remediless against serious procedural lapses by the Respondent Bank. The denial
of access to justice due to rigid procedural enforcement has been criticized by this
Hon’ble Court in Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami
Prakashananda, (2018) 16 SCC 549, which held that procedural hurdles should
not stifle meritorious claims, particularly when substantial questions of law and
injustice are involved. In light of these authoritative pronouncements, it is evident
that the Petitioner has been unfairly prejudiced at the hands of the Respondent
Bank, the DRT, and the DRAT, and intervention by this Hon’ble Court is
warranted to remedy this gross injustice.
Brief Facts
i. That the Petitioner - Keshav Ram Gandharv (sole Proprietor of M/ s.
Gandharv Stone Crusher) is a citizen of India and belongs to Scheduled
Caste community. He is a resident of a remote and backward area in
District Shimla, HP. He is an illiterate, backward, poor and unemployed
person.
 E

ii. Stand-Up India Scheme (hereinafter "The Scheme") was initiated by the
Government in order to promote entrepreneurship at the grassroot level
by providing institutional credit to the marginalized sections of society
such as Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste and women entrepreneurs.
i. The Petitioner therefore planned to setup a stone crusher and applied
for obtaining approval for acquiring a mining lease. They were granted
a 10-year lease over an area measuring 00-57-21 Hectare, bearing
Khasra No. 337/1 and 336 for mining lease and Khasra 337/3 for setting
up the stone crusher via letter dated. 31.03.2016.
ii. Simultaneously, the Petitioner applied for a term loan under the Scheme
for setting up of a stone crusher to the United Bank of India which
subsequently merged with the Punjab National Bank.
iii. Once the documents pertaining to the term loan was executed, a term
loan of an amount of Rs. 75,83,000/- (75% of the total project cost) and
CC limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- with door-to-door tenure of 7 years to be
repaid in 75 instalments with a moratorium of 9 months was approved
on 16.06.2017.
iv. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was disbursed an amount of Rs.
54.14 lacs out of the promised 74.83 lacs. Further the Petitioner was
charged a sum of Rs. 41,000/- towards insurance and Rs. 1,42,608/- on
account of Stand-Up Guarantee fee under the scheme.
v. Thereafter, the Petitioner entered into a lease agreement dated
23.11.2018 with one Shri Chaman Rakesh Azta (lessee) for financial
and technical support owing to the same not being adequately provided
by the bank under the scheme. As per the terms, Shri Chaman Rakesh
Azta was to pay a total of Rs. 75,00,000/- over 5 years with the
investment in each year being Rs. 15,00,000/-.
vi. In the meantime, the Petitioner paid the Bank a sum of Rs. 14,86,817/-
till 31.01.2019 and a further Rs. 3,50,000/- after 31.01.2019.
 F

vii. However, the Bank classified the account of the Petitioner as NPA and
subsequently issued an alleged notice under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act demanding a payment of Rs. 50,61,627/-. It is
submitted that no such notice was received by the Petitioner.
viii. In continuation of the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, an alleged
possession notice u/s 13(4) of the Act was issued. It is submitted that no
such notice was received by the Petitioner either.
ix. In order to take physical possession of the mortgaged property, the Bank
filed an application in Case No. 39/2019 before the Ld. District
Magistrate Shimla u/s 14 of the SARFESI Act which was allowed vide
order dated 09.10.2019.
x. The aforesaid order dated 09.10.2019 was challenged before the
Hon'ble High Court of H.P. on 25.11.2019 by Chaman Rakesh Azta
who was in actual possession of the mortgaged property and was
looking after the operations of stone crusher, by way of writ petition
being CWP No.3786 of 2019 in which the Petitioner was impleaded as
Respondent No.3 being the actual owner of the mortgaged property as
well as the borrower.
i. That the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. issued notice to the respondents
therein including the Petitioner, vide order dated 26.11.2019. The
aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn by Chaman Rakesh Azta therein
on 17.03.2021, with a liberty to approach the competent authority.
While disposing of the writ petition, it was also observed by the Hon'ble
High Court that in case the party approaches the competent authority
within a period of two weeks' from the date of the order, then, the time
spent in pursuing the writ petition shall not come in his way, while
calculating the period of limitation. However, The Bank during the
pendency of the litigation before the Hon'ble High Court created third
party rights despite the order dated 26.11.2019.
 G

xi. That after the disposal of the writ petition, the Petitioner immediately
approached the Respondent Bank, vide letter dated 23.03.2021
submitting an offer for One Time Settlement (OTS) on the basis of
special OTS scheme for FY 2020-21: Non-Discriminatory and Non-
Discretionary Special OTS Scheme 2020 - For NPA Accounts upto Rs.
5 Crores, issued by PNB vide Circular dated 09.09.2020.
xii. That however, the Respondent Bank vide letter dated 24.03.2021 which
was received by the Petitioner on 27.03.2021, rejected the offer of the
Petitioner by passing cryptic and nonspeaking order without giving any
reasons.
xiii. That after having received the aforesaid letter, the Petitioner visited
Chandigarh and engaged a counsel on the same day i.e. 27.03.2021 who
immediately prepared the present SA and filed the same in this Hon'ble
Tribunal on the very next working day i.e.30.03.2021 (28.03.2021
Sunday and 29.03.2021 a holiday on account of Holi) i.e. within two
weeks from the date of disposal of the above said writ petition, as per
directions of the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 17.03.2021.
However, in the process, there occurred a delay of 128 days in filing the
present S.A. before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is further submitted that
keeping in view worldwide outbreak of COVID-19 in March 2020, due
to which the entire system in the country including functioning of courts
and offices was paralyzed, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 was pleased to order vide order
dated 08.03.2021 that in computing the period of limitation for any suit,
appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till
14.03.2021 shall stand excluded.
xiv. The Ld. DRT upon adjudication of the Securitization Application of the
Petitioner did not embark on a formal adjudication on merits to examine
the validity of the SARFAESI proceedings instead, simply dismissed
 H

the same while calculating the limitation from the point when the
SARFAESI proceedings were initiated rather than after the passage of
the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court granting the liberty to the
Petitioner therein.
ii. The Petitioner under a mistaken legal advice, preferred a Writ Petition
C.W.P. 9097 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court of Shimla
impugning the said Impugned order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Ld.
DRT - I Chandigarh, however the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
02.09.2024 was pleased allow the Petitioner to withdraw the said Writ
Petition (CWP No.9097 of 2024) with liberty to file before the
competent forum.
iii. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal, bearing Appeal No. 289 of 2024 u/s
18 of the SARFEASI Act before the Ld. Appellate Tribunal.
iv. The Ld. Appellate Tribunal erroneous dismissed the said Appeal.

That being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant is filing the present
appeal on the following grounds amongst others:

i. The Hon’ble High Court has erred by passing the decision against the
Petitioner without appreciating that the Petitioner has been deeply
prejudiced by the arbitrary actions of the Respondent bank - first by
falsely declaring the account of the Petitioner as NPA and then
subsequently auctioning Petitioner’s property.
ii. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that Petitioner’s property
has erroneously been auctioned off by the Respondent bank in the abuse
of its power without there being any fault attributed to the Petitioner.
iii. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the Ld. Debts
Recovery Tribunal (DRT) erred in dismissing the Securitization
Application (SA) filed by the Petitioner on a hyper-technical ground of
 I

delay. It is submitted that the Petitioner had already filed an Application

for Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
providing valid justifications for the delay in filing the SA. It is
submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in multiple judgments, has held that
delay should be condoned when a litigant has a bona fide case on merits,
and courts should adopt a liberal approach in such matters.
iv. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the Ld. DRT has the
discretion to condone the delay in filing the SA, especially in cases
where a party has a strong case on merits. – In Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) AIR 1353,
this Hon’ble Court held that the courts should adopt a justice-oriented
approach rather than a pedantic one when dealing with applications for
condonation of delay.
v. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the Petitioner came to
know about the SARFAESI proceedings only during the pendency of a
writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. It is submitted
that the bank failed to serve proper notice under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, which deprived the Petitioner of an opportunity to
challenge the proceedings in a timely manner.
vi. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the Respondent bank’s
classification of the Petitioner’s account as NPA was arbitrary, and the
sale of the secured property was conducted without affording the
Petitioner a proper hearing.
vii. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the Petitioner had filed
an application for waiver of pre-deposit, citing financial hardship. The
Ld. Appellate Tribunal summarily dismissed the appeal without
considering the merits of the case, effectively denying access to justice.
viii. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the Petitioner had a
strong case on merits against the illegal SARFAESI action taken by the
 J

bank.
ix. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that Ld. DRT has not
considered the fact that the notices in question and the subsequent
auction proceedings were already a subject matter of adjudication
before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and no evaluation
on merits has been undertaken yet.
x. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that in the absence of any
formal adjudication of the instant petition on merits of the SARFAESI
proceedings especially when the correctness of the proceedings pending
before the Hon'ble High Court culminated in a withdrawal has led to an
anomalous situation where on one hand the auction proceedings have
not been confirmed and lay in limbo on the other hand despite the
Petitioner moving the Ld. DRT immediately after the withdrawal of the
Writ Petition, his securitization application is held to be time barred.

Hence the Special Leave Petition.

 K

LIST OF DATES

Date Description of Events

15.08.2015 Stand-Up India Scheme launched by the Hon 'ble Prime

Minister to promote entrepreneurship at the grassroots

level by providing institutional credit to marginalized

sections of society such as Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled

Caste and women entrepreneurs.

11.08.2014 – The appellant planned to setup a stone crusher and applied

31.03.2016
for obtaining approval for acquiring a mining lease. They

were granted a 10-year lease over an area measuring 00-

57-21 Hectare, bearing Khasra No. 337/1 and 336 for

mining lease and Khasra 337/3 for setting up the stone

crusher via letter dated. 31.03.2016.

09.09.2016 The appellant applied for a term loan under the 'Stand-Up

India Scheme' for setting up the stone crusher to the

United Bank of India, Shimla which subsequently merged

with the Punjab National Bank.

02.03.2017 The relevant documents for the sanction of the term loan were

executed on 02.03.2017.

16.06.2017
The term loan of Rs. 75,83,000/- (75% of the total
 L

project cost) and CC limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- with door-

to-door tenure of 7 years to be repaid in 75 installments

with a moratorium of 9 months was sanctioned on

16.06.2017.

31.12.2017
The Appellant was disbursed 54. 14 lacs out of the

promised 74.83 lacs. Further the appellant was charged

a sum of Rs. 41,000/- towards insurance and Rs.

1,42,608/- on account of Stand-Up Guarantee fee under

the scheme.

23.11.2018
The Appellant entered into a lease agreement dated

23.11.2018 with Chaman Rakesh Azta(lessee) for

financial and technical support owing to the same not

being adequately provided by the bank under the

scheme. Chaman Rakesh Azta was to pay a total of Rs.

75,00,000/- over 5 years with the investment in each

year being Rs. 15,00,000/-.

A True Copy of lease agreement between Petitioner and

Respondent No. 4 is hereby annexed and marked as

ANNEXURE P- 1 (Page No. 14 to 18).

31.01.2019
The applicant paid the bank a sum of Rs. 14,86,817/- till
 M

31.01.2019 and Rs. 3,50,000/-after31.01.2019.

02.02.2019
The respondent bank classified the Appellant as NPA

and issued 13(2) SARFAESI Notice addressed to Lekh

Ram, calling for payment of Rs.50,61,627/- due as on

31.01.2019. No notice was received by the Appellant. A

true copy of Notice dated 02.02.19, U/s 13(2) of

SARFAESI Act, 2002, issued by respondent bank is

hereby annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-2(Page

No. 19 to 21).

15.06.2019
The respondent bank apparently issued a possession

notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFESI Act, 2002 towards the

movable and immovable assets of the Appellant. No

such notice was received by the Appellant. A true copy

of Notice dated 15.06.2019 issued U/s 13(4) of

SARFAESI Act, 2002 issued by respondent bank is

hereby annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-3(Page

No. 22 to 23).

11.09.2019 The Respondent Bank filed an application in case No.

39/2019 before the Ld. District magistrate Shimla u/s 14 of

the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of

the mortgaged property.

 N

09.10.2019 Such Application of Respondent Bank was allowed vide

order dated 09.10.2019, passed by Ld. District Magistrate,

Shimla

25.11.2019 Chaman Rakesh Azta/ lessee of the property initiated C.W.P.

No. 3786 of 2019 under Article 226 for setting aside the

District Magistrate’s order of possession dated 09.10.2019

and the bank’s auction notice dated 31.10.2019.

26.11.2019 The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in C.W.P.

NO. 3786 of 2019 passed order dated 26.11.2019 allowing

the bank to continue with the auction proceedings but did

not allow for confirmation of the sale before confirmation

of the Hon'ble High Court. A true copy of such order passed

by Hon’ble High Court is hereby annexed and marked as

ANNEXURE P- 4 (Page No. 24).

05.01.2021 Third Party rights created in due course of the auction, despite

the order dated 26.11.2019.

17.03.2021 The lessee sought to withdraw the C.W.P. NO. 3786 of 2019

with liberty to file before the competent authority. The same

was permitted, with a direction that the time taken in pursuing

the matter before the Hon'ble High Court will be excluded

 O

from the period of limitation, subject to the lessee filing the

proceedings within 2 weeks.

A true copy of order dated 17.03.2021, passed by Hon’ble

High Court is hereby annexed and marked as ANNEXURE

P-5 (Page No. 25 to 26).

22.03.2021 S.A. 66/2021 was filed in the DRT by the Petitioner seeking

the same relief.

A true copy of Securitisation Application along with

application for condonation of delay, filed before Ld. DRT, is

hereby annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-6 (Page No.

27 to 61).

24.03.2021 The Punjab National Bank rejected the Petitioner’s One Time

Settlement offer dated 24.03.2021.

30.07.2024 Ld. DRT passed the order Dismissing the Petitioner’s S.A.

No. 66/21, declaring it as time-barred, without considering

the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay

justifying the delay caused.

A true copy of order passed by Ld. DRT is hereby annexed

and marked as ANNEXURE P-7 (Page No. 62 to 64).

 P

29.08.2024 C.W.P. No. 9097 of 2024 was filed in the Hon’ble High Court

of Shimla against the said order dated 30.07.2024 in S.A. No.

66/21, passed by the Ld. DRT – I, Chandigarh.

02.09.2024 The Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the said Writ

Petition (CWP No. 9097 of 2024) with liberty to file before

the competent forum.

Such Order passed by Hon’ble High Court is hereby annexed

and marked as ANNEXURE P- 8 (Page No. 65 to 66).

07.09.2024 Appeal No. 289/2024 filed before the Ld. Appellate

Tribunal(DRAT), against the order dated 30.07.2024, passed

by Ld. DRT in S.A. No. 66/21.

A True Copy of Appeal No. 289/2024 is hereby annexed and

marked as ANNEXURE P- 9 (Page No. 67 to 88).

11.12.2024 The Impugned order passed by the Ld. Appellate

Tribunal(DRAT) in Appeal No. 289/2024, dismissing such

appeal on the ground that appeal cannot be entertained for

want of compliance of the condition of pre-deposit.

16.02.2025 Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

1
2
 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. _______________ OF 2025
[Against the final impugned order and judgement dated 11.12.2024, in Appeal
No. 289 of 2024, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi]

IN THE MATTER OF:

IN DRAT IN THIS HON’BLE
COURT
M/S Gandharv Stone Crusher
Through its Proprietor
Sh. Keshav Ram Gandharv
S/O Sh Heera R/O Village Kanufri,
P.O. Dharech,
Tehsil Theog, District Shimla APPELLANT PETITIONER
Himachal Pradesh
VERSUS

1. Punjab National Bank,

Circle Sastra, Circle Office,
Raegent House, The Mall,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh - 171001, RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
Through Its Circle Sastra Head NO.1 NO.1

2. Authorised Officer, Punjab

National Bank Circle Sastra, Circle
Office, Raegent House, The Mall, RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
Shimla- 171001, Himachal Pradesh NO.2 NO.2

3. Vivek Gautam S/o Sh. Munni Lal

Gautam, R/o Gautam Niwas, Lathi
Road, Near Senior Secondary RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
School, Kumarsain, District NO.3 NO.3
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

4. Chaman Rakesh Azta S/o Mangat

Ram Azta, aged about 55 years, R/o
Dev Shanti Kunj, North Oak,
 4

Sanjauli, Shimla-6, Shimla Urban,

RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
Shimla-171006, Himachal Pradesh
NO.4 NO.4
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Special Leave Petition is filed by the Petitioner under A. 136
read with A. 142 of the Constitution, being aggrieved by the judgement and
final order dated 11.12.2024, in Appeal No. 289 of 2024, (hereinafter
referred to as the “Impugned Order”) passed by the Ld. Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. Appellate
Tribunal”).

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
a. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the Petitioner’s
appeal solely for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under
Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, without considering the
Petitioner’s financial hardship and his application for waiver?
b. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to exercise its statutory
discretion under the third proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002, by not reducing the pre-deposit to 25%, as permitted in Union Bank
of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 11 SCC 440?
 5

c. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal’s refusal to consider the Petitioner’s

financial condition before dismissing the appeal amounts to a denial of
access to justice, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, as the rigid enforcement of pre-deposit requirements
disproportionately affects individuals like the Petitioner, who lack
�inancial resources and access to legal representation?
d. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that this Hon’ble
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn., (2013)
8 SCC 519 has held that laws or procedures that create an unreasonable
burden on marginalized communities can violate Article 14?
e. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Stand-Up
India Scheme, under which the Petitioner availed the loan, was
speci�ically designed to uplift Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and
women entrepreneurs by providing institutional credit. However, the
Respondent Bank’s arbitrary actions and the Ld. Appellate Tribunal’s
dismissal of the Petitioner’s appeal undermine the very purpose of the
scheme and disproportionately affect his fundamental rights.?
f. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, by mechanically relying on Kotak
Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. v. Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors., (2021) 3 SCC 549,
without considering the Petitioner’s exceptional circumstances, has
wrongly foreclosed his statutory right to appeal?
g. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that in rare and
deserving cases, a waiver of pre-deposit can be granted, as recognized in
Lalit Kulthia v. Commissioner of Customs, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3757,
and that the Petitioner’s case falls within such exceptional circumstances?
h. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal ought to have considered that the
Petitioner’s appeal involved serious questions of law and procedural
irregularities in the SARFAESI proceedings, which warranted adjudication
on merits rather than dismissal on technical grounds?
 6

i. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal’s dismissal of the appeal for non-
compliance with pre-deposit, without any adjudication on the merits of the
SARFAESI action, amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice?
j. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that the Petitioner
had been denied a fair opportunity to contest the SARFAESI proceedings
before the DRT, and that procedural rigidity should not be used to stifle
meritorious claims Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami
Prakashananda, (2018) 16 SCC 549?
k. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal acted arbitrarily in dismissing the
appeal without considering that the Petitioner had a strong prima facie case
on merits against the illegal SARFAESI action taken by the bank?
l. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the Petitioner’s
Securitization Application (SA) on the hyper-technical ground of delay,
despite the settled principle of law that courts should adopt a justice-
oriented approach in condonation of delay applications, as held in
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987)
AIR 1353?
m. Whether the classification of the Petitioner’s loan account as a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA) and the subsequent SARFAESI proceedings were
conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, given that the
Petitioner was never properly served with notices under Sections 13(2) and
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to
contest the proceedings in a timely manner?
n. Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh’s order in CWP No.
3786 of 2019, which granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the
competent forum, should have been considered while computing the
limitation period for filing the Securitization Application before the Ld.
DRT?
 7

o. Whether the Ld. DRT Chandigarh and the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the Petitioner had a meritorious case on merits and that the
SARFAESI action, including the auction of the secured property, was
conducted in a legally flawed manner?
p. Whether, in the absence of any formal adjudication on the merits of the
SARFAESI proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal
Pradesh or the Ld. DRT Chandigarh, the dismissal of the Petitioner’s case
on purely procedural grounds amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice?

3. DECLRATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):

The Petitioner states that they have filed no other Petition seeking Leave to
Appeal against the Impugned Order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi in Appeal No. 289 of 2024.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

The annexures P-1 to P-9 are produced along with the Special Leave
Petition are true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of
the records of the case in the Court below against whose order the leave to
appeal is sought for in this Petition.
5. GROUNDS:
A. BECAUSE, the Ld. Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the Petitioner’s
appeal solely on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit
requirement under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, without
considering the Petitioner’s financial hardship and his application for
waiver.
B. BECAUSE the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to exercise its statutory
discretion under the third proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002,
by not reducing the pre-deposit to 25%, despite the Hon’ble Supreme
Court’s ruling in Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. &
 8

Ors., (2020) 11 SCC 440 that DRAT has the discretion to do so in deserving
cases.
C. BECAUSE the Ld. Appellate Tribunal’s refusal to consider the Petitioner’s
financial incapacity before dismissing the appeal amounts to a denial of
access to justice, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
D. BECAUSE the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, by mechanically relying on Kotak
Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. v. Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors., (2021) 3 SCC 549,
without considering the Petitioner’s exceptional circumstances, wrongly
foreclosed his statutory right to appeal.
E. BECAUSE the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that in rare and
deserving cases, a waiver of pre-deposit can be granted, as recognized in
Lalit Kulthia v. Commissioner of Customs, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3757,
and the Petitioner’s case falls within such exceptional circumstances.
F. BECAUSE the Ld. Appellate Tribunal ought to have considered that the
Petitioner’s appeal involved serious questions of law and procedural
irregularities in the SARFAESI proceedings, which warranted adjudication
on merits rather than dismissal on technical grounds.
G. BECAUSE the Ld. Appellate Tribunal’s dismissal of the appeal for non-
compliance with pre-deposit, without any adjudication on the merits of the
SARFAESI action, amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice.
H. BECAUSE the Ld. Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that the Petitioner
had been denied a fair opportunity to contest the SARFAESI proceedings
before the DRT, and that procedural rigidity should not be used to stifle
meritorious claims, as held in Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v.
Swami Prakashananda, (2018) 16 SCC 549.
I. BECAUSE the Ld. Appellate Tribunal acted arbitrarily in dismissing the
appeal without considering that the Petitioner had a strong prima facie case
on merits against the illegal SARFAESI action taken by the bank.
 9

J. BECAUSE the Ld. Appellate Tribunal’s failure to exercise its discretion in

granting relief to the Petitioner has resulted in a situation where he has been
left remediless due to procedural technicalities, despite having a strong case
on merits, warranting the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s intervention under
Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
K. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court, under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, has the power to pass any order necessary to do
complete justice between the parties, and in the present case, strict adherence
to procedural requirements has led to a grave miscarriage of justice,
warranting the Court’s intervention.
L. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that procedural
technicalities should not defeat the cause of justice, and the present case,
where the Petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed on hyper-technical grounds
without an adjudication on merits, is a fit case for the exercise of its
extraordinary powers under Article 142.
M. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in numerous cases, has exercised
its power under Article 142 to relax procedural requirements in cases where
strict compliance would result in injustice, and in the present case, the Ld.
Appellate Tribunal’s rigid interpretation of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act
has deprived the Petitioner of his statutory right to appeal.
N. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Delhi Development Authority v.
Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622, held that the power
under Article 142 is meant to do "complete justice" by overriding procedural
barriers when they cause undue hardship, and the present case warrants such
relief as the Petitioner has been left remediless.
O. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak,
(1988) 2 SCC 602, observed that Article 142 enables the Court to pass orders
that ensure fairness and equity, and in the present case, a strict application
 10

of pre-deposit requirements has resulted in an inequitable and unjust

situation.
P. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in M.L. Majumdar v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2020) 12 SCC 643, emphasized that Article 142 can be invoked
when a party is left without any remedy due to procedural hurdles, and the
Petitioner’s case falls squarely within this principle, as he has been denied
the right to contest the SARFAESI action on merits.
Q. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court should exercise its powers under
Article 142 to allow the Petitioner’s appeal to be heard on merits, as the
failure of both the Ld. DRT and the Ld. Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate the
case has resulted in an unjust situation where the Petitioner has been
deprived of his fundamental right to be heard
6. MAIN PRAYER:
It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously
be pleased to:
a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India against the final impugned order dated 11.12.2024, in Appeal No.
289 of 2024, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi.
b) Pass any other or further order(s) this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice.

FILED BY:

PLACE: NEW DELHI (DAWNEESH SHAKTIVATS)

FILED ON: 16.02.2025 Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner
AOR Code : 3483
 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. _______________ OF 2025
[Against the final impugned order and judgement dated 11.12.2024, in Appeal
No. 289 of 2024, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi]

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S GANDHARV STONE CRUSHER …PETITIONER

VERSUS

A.O. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleading before
the Court whose order is challenged, and the other documents relied upon in those
proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein
or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition, which were not part of the record
before High Court. It is further certified that copies of documents/annexures
attached to the Special Leave Petition is necessary to answer the question of law
raised in the petition or to make out ground urged in the Special Leave Petition
for consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This certificate is given by the Petitioner
/Person authorized by the Petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the
Special Leave Petition.

FILED BY

PLACE: NEW DELHI (DAWNEESH SHAKTIVATS)

FILED ON: 16.02.2025 Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner
AOR Code : 3483
12
13
14 ANNEXURE P-1
15
16
17
18
 19
ANNEXURE P-2

{ \

";!011$1!5 fi" 3ITto $fiis41 I

~.~.3IT-
United Bank of India
:qulflllqt m /'
SC0-32,33,34,
Chandigarh-Region
~ Sector-1Hft/C, ~/Chandigarh
_j
~~~~~~~-;~~~~---~----rr~e~le~p~ho~n~e~-0_1_
72_·_
25_4_1_
63_3_,F_a_x-_o_17_2_-s_o_7_09_o_o___________
~ : ~.aT /~ i 'B'<~:Hl I /2018-19
REF: RO/CHDN/RECOVERY/SARFAESI! 73~ /2018-19 ~I Date:- 02 .02 .2019

tlcrr if I To,
'MtSGAN_D_H_A_R_ __C
V_S_T_O_N_E _R_U_S_H--ER-~--r-ou_g_h-~-s----~S~h~
. -K-es_h_a_
v_R_
a_m_G
_a_n_d_h_a-~
--S-/O
__H_e_e--ra-----------~
IProprietor Sh.' Keshav Ram Gandharv S/o Heera Village Kanufri Dharech (227),Tehsii-Theog,Shimla

!Village Kanufrl Dharech (227), Tehsii-Theog,Shimla

Himachal Pradesh 171209
Himachal Pradesh 171209

ta-..fr~· q~fl'l"''lft!i<ll
<ti'r wm
'Q'ci 'j01~mor 3i'R ~ C<TNr ~ 2002 <ti'r tmT 13 (2) cf; .mfr.:r ~ I
'J]Jf,:E US 13(21 OF TH E SECURIT!SATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT
~ !- ~. SECU R I TY IN-TEREST ACT. 2002.

~~~~.
Sir/Madam,

1) 3fl1T ~ fcf;v 01V ~ 'q"{ pr <9;ilt$ts fq; 3iftl; ~. ¥ ~4.83,ooo/- '4i'r ~ ~ ~rnm ~nm
or m l>i~ '4i'r ~ VGTif '4i'r d't , Po' ;fiV 3ftr.t ~ ~ 01V :{£t1l' fc!raluT ·t- ~ ~ ~ ~ wam * :m
<fiT i1:tf-&" ~ ~;:;;:jdn ~ ~ '4i'r ufir *GOt~ Jiliiifil-fl ?; ~ ~ :-
~ }- At the request made by you. we, UNITED BANK OF INDIA. from our Sh1mla Branch granted to you Terrn Loan
facility for an aggregate amount of U4,83,000/- We give hereunder details of credit facility granted by us and the
amounts
r- - ·
outstandin dues thereunder as on the date of notice:-
Sfi. ~/ 'f1T mar ~.INc No. ~ 31.01 .2019 it ~ ~
~/Nature Sanctioned (J1.o1.2o19 ~ ~ ~ m-tr 1
SI.No. of facility Limit Rs. ~ )Amount outstanding as on r
31.01.2019(With interest charged
upto 31 .01.2019) •
--~ - - f- ....... - ...--.-....·-·- - --·--- - - ---- j
n4,B3,ooot- 1 t 50,61 ,627.24 1

2) ~1 ~q;- ~ ~ cf;t ~ W'N ( if;fu;") ~ falMfc:r~Ci ~ I mfr~ ~ ~ 6 :-

2)- The aforesaid credit facilities granted by the Bank are secured by the following assets/Securities:-

l. ~ 1lf?nr!Sr 'l Primary Security:-

LHy::othec:at!on of ~nwk~ of rl~w m2 teri2.!~ , work-in-process, finishe{~ good.•; . stores, spares

and consumables, book debts I r·eceivable!> and other current assets of the finn both present
and future.

2.Hypothecation of Plant & Machinery of the firm both present and future.

_,
 20

..

3. Registered Mortgage of Land and building to be constructed thereon measuring 01-14-92

Hectares comprised in Khasra no 337, Khata Khatauni no 12/min/37 min, situated in Mohal
Dharesh, Revenue Circle Dharech within sub registrar office of Theog, Tehsil Theog and
district Shimla. H.P Standin in the name of Sh.Sh. Keshav Ram Gandharv S/0 Heera

4. An area of land measuring 00-08-04 Hectares comprised in Khasra no 336 Khata

Khatauni no 12 min/37min, situated in MohaJ Dharech, Revenue circle Dharech within sub
registrar Office of Theog, Tehsil thcog and dist Shimla H.P. Standing in the name of Sh Lekh
Ram S/o Sh Bhagat Ram

3) ~ f<n ~~'fiT~~ mw* ~~~ 1 ~ ~~~. ~pr.r ~~~~;;niT fcti"Q"

mr ~IT- ~IT I ~iT ~ q'; ~ 31.01.2019 ~ ~ m-- fi!~>ql\"?<(1 ~ ( 1JO'f tfr '!") q'; ~ * .3fTt1'q';
~~~~tl
3)- As you have defaulted in repayment of your dues to the Bank we classified your account (s) as Non-Performing Assets
(NPA) w.e.f. 3 .01.2019 in accordance with the directions /guidelines issued by the Reserve BanR of India.

4) N{Tcf('l' Ol('IW <FRUIT <f; L')('l{'q'Q4 'P1 3IT4'CfiT 3Cf(i 31~ cfi'r URT 13 (2) <f; 31tfr.:r ~ ~ ~ 3-fit 3IT4'CfiT ~ Cft
~ "'~q, 3lG<ft ~A q:;T ~ ~ <ti ft':w ~ <ilT 11.60% ~ ~ ~ ~ <fi m ~50,61,627.24 ~ <liT..rr
~ I ~~ ~ ~ 60 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ 'P1 ~muE ~~.Ftffit <f; ~.
~ · ~cm-it:m% ~~~~~ ~3ffi'~q';~ ~m~q';~J-fit
WfF.'i;•!'IUI 3ffi- <Fffi m JiTUf.t<n=r , 2002 oF~ 13 q'; ~~<IT~·~ ~rf<to <iii'~ q;ffl I
4) - For the re.asons slated above, we hereby give you notice under section 13(2) of the abn\!e noted Act 'and call upon you
to discharge in full your liabilities to the Bank by paying to Bank f50,61 ,627.24 (Rupees Fifty Lakh Sixty One Thousand
Six Hund ered and twenty seven & Paisa twenty four only) along w ith interest@ 11 .60 % p.a. With monthly rests within a
pe:nod o 60 (Sixty) days from the date of notice ,failing which we will entirely at your risk as to costs and consequences exercise
all or any of the powers under section 13 oi the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcem ent of
Security lnteres Act. 2002.agains: the secured assets mentioned above.

5) 3'1"<Jq:a ~ ~'t <f; Jin•~:1 m'TI ~ ~ 37. ~..ft ~ . ~("<!'\1 3fu' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Wfr 3T ¢ c.:am
fcl;"Q' dfCl' 1:!T& 3-fit I <:IT ~ f.i..'1fr ~ }ll'hfF.A'h ~iF ~ tl ¢ <ffi=f, ~ ~ GfC8m <TfW iF ~ 1T ~ ~
~ ~ ~ <f;T fc'1nl- it dFF<1fcl'h ~<itt <fi'r c=rrfu:!r <1'fi 3-fit ~ *r ~~ -nfW, ~ 'fi)t ~. ~ cf.r q:fr t<:i' nfW (1'(F '"R W
iiRP'IC'.' ~ ~ q'; <iR, ~ ~ ~ ;;mrm I
5)-The amounts realized from exercising th e powers mentioned above, will firstly be applied in payment of all costs, charges
and expenses which are Incurred by us and /or any expenst~s incidental thereto, and secondly applied in discharge of the
Bank's dues as mentioned above with contractual interest from the date of this notice till the date of actual realization and the
residue of the money, if any, after the Bank's entire dues are fully recovered, shall be paid to you.

6) ~ ~ uftl w em-~~~ <ti ft.!rc;rrq; 31fn ~~ <t> w.w. *~·3m<* wr fui ~~err .P1 3n% m11
1~ <fi <'1m ~N uftl cfi'r ~ <fi ~ 'li[OT ~ ~ I ~ Jt ~ ~ ~ 3fTtl'<fi f<Ri0<t Rll<'!T'Qi' 1lT'T ~
~'fii~~mtr~ I
6)- 1· the said dues are not fu lly recovered with the procaeds realized in the course of exercise of the said powers against the
-;ecured assets, we re serve our right·to proceed against you before Debt Recovery Tribunal/Court for recover)' of the balance
' · amount due along~with all costs etc .incidental thereto from you .

7) ~ ~ t fct> ~ff ~ ~ ~ CR'Oi <f; GfiC;' ~ ~ cf;'r Qm 13(1 3) cti ~. 3fTtl"h'r ~11 ~ I
~ * ~ r.r#T, ~ m 31~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -m ~ li! l dfict m ~ TI'i> R<rr JT<rr tl
?) P!case t;:;ke T'"!C:~ tha C3 per sect.!en 13 (~ 3) ~~ !~e gfor!!~3k! .J. . :;t cfte: re~!pt thic.:: notice. Y'.JU ~: :;: !"P-Str~!::-:.!1 frcm tra n s : ~· r~n~
by way of sale, lease or otherwise any of the secl!red assets reterred to in this notice.

8) ~rufr ~ ~ cH ;;rrfr ~ 3-fit 3ll~ 31ftlfcii'.£r;FT ~ tffiT 13 cf; ~r, ~ :.trftt<f>T(t <f>T Wo~1TN 'fi\O'f <l~
rn~q,r~-~~~t 1

8)·· fhe undersigned is a duly autl1orized officer of the Bank to issue this notice and to exerc:se powers under section 1;j oi the
aforesaid act.

_,
 21

9) ~ 3~~·~ <wiT ~ G1tT 6 fcl; ~ ~ ~ ~ * f<:w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3"tl1"<r * ~ ~ ~~

61
9)- Needless to mention that this notice is issued to you without prejudice to any other remedy available to.the Bank.

10) ~ ~. 2002, * ~ ~ (8) tmT 13 <t; ~ 3tiF(~ q;r t:<m1 ~ m=l<f ~~~~'fit
~ <rr.t ~ .mr ~ %<IT ;;m;r trr
10)- The Borrower's attention Is invited to the provision sub-section ~8) section 13 of SARFAESI Acl,2002, in regard to time
available to redeem the secured asset. ·

..
 22

ANNEXURE P-3

--
United Bank of 1

Chandigarh-Re£

SC0-32,33,34,Sector-17 -< handigarh

Telephone-0172-2541633, Fa 172-5070900

Rulee(1)

Possession Notice (for Immovable Propt

Whereas

The undersigned being the authorized officer at th;:; United Bank of a under the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enfc-rcernent or Secu !nterest Act,2002 and in
8Xercise of power conferred under secucn 13 (~2) read witl1 f~~
.· (Entorcement) Rules 2002,issued a demand notice dated 02.02.20
. of lhe Security Interest
~aiiing upon tne borrower
(i)}J:/S GANDHARV STONE CRUSHER through 1ts Proprietor Sh. shav Ram Gandharv S/o
l~eera ,Vi!iage Kanufri Dharech (227),Tehsii-Theog,Shimla, Himacr Pradesh '171209 (ii). Sh
Keshav Ram Gandharv S/0 Heera Village Kanufri Dharect 227),Tehsii-Theog,Shimla
l~i "'~acr~a! Pradesh 171209(iii). Mr Lekh Ram S/0 Sh.Bhag . Ram {Guarantor). 8/1,
Vi :agrA;arpaiyan. Dharech Tehsii-Theog,Distt.-Stlim!a 171209 (f- to repay the total amount
rnentionea in the notice being t50,61,627 .24 (Rupees Fifty L11kt xt:~ One Thot.:sand Six
H:.'~::!r-.-r;:o ar.d twenty seven & P::is.l twanty foLJt only) as on 31 01 . 9 witft fwther inter·2S! @
!I GCJ% p a , expenses and other cnGrgt:s thereu11 witi:in 60 ciays o :~
daie of not:ceircceipt :)i

Tf:c! borrower having failed to repay the amount. nutin.; is here:·;y gi· to ihr~ borrowers and tne
oJohc in general that the undersigned ha:; taKen pcssession d ir 1rcpE:c;y described nc~re:n
c,.<O\N :n exercise Of power con fecre:.:i 0'1 hunlh{;l ~!~rjGr SeCtiQ(1 ~ 3 \"~) ~r~u s~id ,L\ct r~:1d \~.:~r~ r..;ic.;
A.,; <l-e
'·" ~·:
-.J'
..~ a -l r• de--~ on ~his date
• ._ U· •
· - --/ "' : i
.;__I
\. .. -

:·~e :.:·urrcwer's attention is invited to provisions of sub-se(::ticn (8) of sect 13 of theAct, in respect oi
~i ':""; 2 a'.!ailaole, to redeem the secured assets.

1r·,r:; borrower m particular and the public in general is hereby ca ned not to deal w::t\ tt1c
-;/-:.per:y :::nd any dealing with the property will be sJb)eGt to the char- ,f Un1led llani< cf lr.c;a ic. ~

an ar~ou.'il 't50,6 1,627.24 and other charges and 1nte:t::!st thereon w.• )1.02.2019.

1.,~ -~ .rt'"d>CCll."l
, .... :""lr"·jl., l ~ t;r n ()t'' :st.,.._~.,
~. .J,, .... ~II;\ ( f r··t'
., • • . .v ~ r· -. ·~~~}1.'" ,,,, .._
:....•-1
.. .... 1 ••• "~ " J."" .. t.r_~r
• ·<J~~!Js, i'ir..i ~~ hed guutJ.;,
:.nllr~~:, spares and <~onsu:mabks, h>l;:ic 'h~bis ! 1·;.:~~':' lc~ anJ oti!i:r ~ltrTt:rtt
m;~d!i of the firm both present am! fuLI..in.·.

iiiypothecation of Plant & \llnd:irLCt...' t) !' the firm b1

 23

3. Registered Mortgage of Land and bujlding to constructed thereon

measuring 01-14-92 Hectares comprised in Khasra no. , Khata Khatauni no
12/min/37 min, situated in M·ohal I>harcsh, Revenue Cit Dharcch within sub
registrar- office of Thcog, Tehsil Theog and district Shir . UJ> Standin in the
name of Sh. Kcshav Ram Gandharv S/0 II cera

4. An area of land measuring 00-0&.-04 Hc~tar~s comi ed L, Khasra nH 336,

Khata Kbatauni no 12 mh::./37min, sitLimcd in Mohal l rceh1 Revenue circ:lc
Dhar~ch \\-"ithin sub registrar Onicc of Thcog, Tchsil the and dist Shim ltt lU~.
~t:::;_~mi!n :~c n.!IIl~ ~r Sh Lckh Ram Sk Sh Uhagat Ram
,, . - . .. -~. ;tF' ~lff
'~:;-ti-rr.ry B.,~--!\1.:. ,);; IND'!.< .
'!(
: ~:·· ·:'1 r.·~ ~i· ·;__:}:-~ ·' \\1
.,.,
' ,. , , \ ..... _-,\ "'
~~

~
•
~ JoC.
' ·a.j;
-1t"-
--:~~·~
~11?" .,.-_
. .. ,L
!Q·~
Jl'"'r•
.
·:-'-• I
~
. ----~----
Dated: 15.0,2019
 24
ANNEXURE P-4

CWP No. 3786 of 2019

.
26.11.2019 Present: Mr. Sumit Raj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

.P
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr.
J.K.Verma, Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Adarsh

H
Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami, Mr. Ashwani Sharma
and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates
General, for respondent No. 1.

of
CMP No. 13614 of 2019

Allowed and disposed of.

rt
CWP No. 3786 & 13615 of 2019:

Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

ou
General, accepts the service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

Dasti notice be issued to respondents No. 2 & 3,

C

returnable for 2.12.2019, on taking steps within two days. It is made

h

clear that respondents may proceed with the auction proceedings but

confirmation shall not be made till the disposal of this matter and
ig

without leave of the Court.

H

CMP No. 13616 of 2019:

The application is disposed of with the direction

that the petitioner shall file the typed/legible copies of the documents

in issue by the next date of hearing.

Copy dasti.

(L. Narayana Swamy)

Chief Justice

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)

Judge
26th November, 2019
(reena)

::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2025 08:02:14 :::CIS

 2021:HHC:2205-DB
25
ANNEXURE P-5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No. 3786 of 2019

Decided on: 17.03.2021

.
_______________________________________________________________

.P
Chaman Rakesh Azta ….. Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate & ors. ……Respondents

H
_______________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? No.
_______________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: rt Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma and Ms.
Anu Tuli Azta, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
ou
General with Mr. Vikas Rathore,
Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal
Manhans, Addl. AGs, Mr. J.S.
Guleria and Mr. Bhupinder
Thakur, Dy. AGs, for respondent
C

No. 1.
Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Nitin Mishra, Advocate,
h

for respondent No. 2.

Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
ig

Mr. Ravi Tanta, Advocate, for

auction purchaser.
H

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge(oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

permission of this Court to withdraw the instant petition, with

liberty to approach the competent authority. The prayer

being innocuous, is allowed. Accordingly, the instant petition

is disposed of, as withdrawn, with liberty, as aforesaid.

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2025 08:02:51 :::CIS

 2021:HHC:2205-DB
26
2

2. However, it is made clear that in case the

petitioner approaches the competent authority within a

period of two weeks’ from today, then, time spent in

.
pursuing the instant lis shall not come in his way, while

.P
calculating the period of limitation.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)

H
disposed of.

of
Copy dasti.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)

Judge
rt (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge
ou
March 17, 2021
(raman/virender)
C
h
ig
H

::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2025 08:02:51 :::CIS

27
ANNEXURE P-6
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
ANNEXURE P-7
63
64
 65 ANNEXURE P-8
( 2024:HHC:7739 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.9097 of 2024
Date of decision: 02.09.2024

M/s Gandharv Stone Crusher ….Petitioner

.
.P
Versus

H
Punjab National Bank and Ors. ….Respondents

Coram:

of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 No.

For the Petitioner:

rt Mr.Prem Chand Verma, Varun Thakur
and Aakash Thakur, Advocates.
ou
For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No.1 & 2.
C

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge(Oral):

Notice. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, appears and

h

waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2.

ig

2. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the

petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition with

H

liberty to file the same before competent authority. The prayer

being innocuous is allowed.

3. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2025 16:55:06 :::CIS

 66
2
( 2024:HHC:7739 )

withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )

.P
Judge

H
( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge

of
September 02, 2024
(reena)

rt
ou
C
h
ig
H

::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2025 16:55:06 :::CIS

 67
ANNEXURE P-9

BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW

DELHI

APPEAL NO. OF 2024

IN

S.A. No. 66 of2021 (DRT-1, Chandigarh)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MIS GANDHARV STONE CRUSHER ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

A.O. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS

INDEX

S.No. PARTICULARS PG.

NO.

I. Memo of Parties \- ,,_

2. Memo of Parties in S.A. No. 66 of 2021 before DRT-I,
Chandigarh 1
3. List of Dates and Events
L{r- i-
4. Appeal under Section 18 of SARF AESI Act, 2002 along
with supporting affidavit '&-)!.
5. AnnexureA:

Certified Copy of the Impugned Order dated 30.07.2024

22---1£
passed by Ld. DRT-I, Chandigarh in SA No. 66 of2021

6. Annexure B:
~ (;-I (, 5
SA No. 66 of 2021 along with annexures
 68

7. Annexure C:

Written Statement of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with

annexures

8. Annexure D:

CWP 3786 of 2019 before the Hon 'ble High Court of / ';'j ~ j "' J2-
Himachal Pradesh

9. Annexure E:

Order dated 26.11.2019 passed in CWP 3786 of2019

10. Annexure F:

Order dated 17.03.2021 passed in CWP 3786 of2019

11 . Annexure G:

CWP No. 9097/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court of

2,J{,-
Himachal Pradesh et9
12. Annexure H:

Order dated 02.09 .2024 passed in CWP 9097 by the J CJ 0 _}_£/ J

Hon'ble High Court ofHimachal Pradesh

13. Annexure I:

Order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High 2Cf2-

Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP 3786 of 2019

14. Vakalatnama

NEW DELHI APPELLANT

 69

DATED: 1iq/2-4-
THROUGH

(CHRITARTH PALLI) (HARSHEEN M PALLI) (RASHI JAIN)

ADVOCATES

C-36, LGF, DEFENCE COLONY,

NEW DELHI - 110024

 70

BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW

DELHI

APPEAL NO. OF 2024

IN

S.A. No. 66 of2021 (DRT-I, Chandigarh)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MUSGANDHARVSTONECRUSHER . .. APPELLANT

VERSUS

A.O. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS

MEMO OF PARTIES

I. MIS GANDHARV STONE CRUSHER

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH. KESHAV RAM GANDHARV
S/0 SH HEERA RIO VILLAGE KANUFRI,
P.O. DHARECH,
TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA
HIMACHAL PRADESH . .. APPELLANT

VERSUS

1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,

CIRCLE SASTRA, CIRCLE OFFICE,
RAEGENT HOUSE,
THE MALL, SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH -171001,
THROUGH ITS CIRCLE SASTRA HEAD
 71

2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, PU\lJAB NATIONAL BANK

CIRCLE SASTRA, CIRCLE OFFICE,
RAEGENT HOUSE,
THE MALL, SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH -171001.

3. VIVEK GAUTAM,
S/0 SH. MUNNI LAL GAUTAM,
RIO GAUTAM NIW AS, LATHI ROAD,
NEAR SENIOR SECONDRY SCHOOL,
KUMARSAIN, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.

4. CHAMAN RAKESH AZTA,

S/0 LATE SH. M.R. AZTA,
RIO DEV SHAKTI KUNJ,
NORTH OAK,
SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH. . .. RESPONDENTS

NEW DELHI APPELLANT

c. prdt·
(CHRITARTH PALLI) (HARSHEEN M PALLI) (RASHI JAIN)

ADVOCATES

C-36, LGF, DEFENCE COLONY,

 72
-.

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBTS

RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

bb
Securitization Application No . ......... of 2021

MEMO OF PARTIES

Mfs. Gandharv Stone Crusher, through its

Proprietor Sh. Keshav Ram Gandharv S/o Sh.

Heera R/o Village Kanufari, P.O. Dharech, Tehsil

Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh .

... Appellant/ Applicant

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra, Circle

Office, Reagent House, The Mall, Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh - 17100 1, through its Circle

Sastra Head.

2. Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle

Sastra, Circle Office, Reagent House, The Mall,

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh- 171001.

3. Vivek Gautam S/o Sh. Munni Lal Gautam, R/o

Gautam Niwas, Lathi Road, Near Senior

Secondary School, Kumarsain, District Shimla,

Himachal Prade~h.

4. Chaman Rakesh Azta S/o Late Sh. M. R. Azta

Rfo Dev Shakti Kunj, North Oak, Shimla (HP) .

... Respondents

Place Chandigarh (VIPUL SHARMA) (PAULS. SAINI)

Advocates
Mar. 30, 2021 Counsel for the Applicant
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
 89

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. _______________ OF 2025
[Against the final impugned order and judgement dated 11.12.2024, in Appeal
No. 289 of 2024, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi]

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S GANDHARV STONE CRUSHER …PETITIONER

VERSUS

A.O. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILLING THE CERTIFIED

COPY OF THE FINAL IMPUGNED ORDER AND JUDGEMENT
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER NAMED
ABOVE
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The instant Special Leave Petition (SLP) is filed by the Petitioner being

aggrieved by the order/ judgement dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Debt

Recovery Appellate Tribunal(DRAT) in Appeal No. 289 of 2024,

 90

dismissing the appeal on the ground that appeal cannot be entertained for

want of compliance of the condition of pre-deposit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying Petition may be read and parcel of

the instant application and are not being repeated herein for the sake of

brevity and to avoid prolixity and the Petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble

Court to refer to the same as and when required to do so.

3. For the reason of urgency in seeking directions of this Hon'ble Court, as

significant number of days has already been passed, the Petitioner was

unable to get the certified copy of the final impugned order and judgment

from the Ld. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously

be please to:

(a) Exempt the petitioner from filling the certified copy of the final and

impugned order/ judgement dated 11.12.2024, passed by the Ld. Debt

Recovery Appellate Tribunal(DRAT) in Appeal No. 289 of 2024 and/or;

(b) Pass such other order(s) this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper

considering the facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN

DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY

FILED BY :
 91

(DAWNEESH SHAKTIVATS)

PLACE : NEW DELHI Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner

DATE : 16.02.2025 AOR Code : 3483

92
93
 94

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. _______________ OF 2025
[Against the final impugned order and judgement dated 11.12.2024, in Appeal
No. 289 of 2024, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi]

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S GANDHARV STONE CRUSHER …PETITIONER

VERSUS

A.O. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

INDEX
S.No. Particulars Copies Court fees
1. Office report on Limitation 1+3
2. Listing Proforma 1+3
3. Cover Page of Paper Book 1+3
4. Check List 1+3
5. Synopsis, List of Dates 1+3
6. Impugned Order/ Judgement 1+3
7. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit 1+3
8. Annexures P-1 to P-9 1+3
9. Vakalatnama 1+3
Certified that the copies are correct

(DAWNEESH SHAKTIVATS)
PLACE: NEW DELHI Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
DATE: 16.02.2025
AOR Code : 3483
95