The DRAT dismissed the appeal against an interim stay on a District Magistrate order. The Tribunal held the appeal lacked merit as the findings regarding land deeds were yet to be determined and gave no final decision due to the pending SARFAESI application.
Appeal dismissed; lower court directed to decide pending application expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Reportable/Non-Reportable
Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2025
(Arising out of I.A. 9935 of 2024 in S.A. 1056 of 2024 in DRT-III, Kolkata)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
The Authorised Officer, The Federal Bank Limited, Kolkata VIP Road branch, Siddhi Apartment Ground Floor, 71 Teghoria, VIP Road, P.S. - Rajarhat now Baguiati, Kolkata - 700 157, West Bengal
-Versus-
… Proforma Respondents
| Counsel for Appellants | … | Ms. Aparajita Rao Ms. Nabanita Dutta |
|---|---|---|
| Counsel for Respondent No. 1 |
… | Ms. Anindita Das |
| Counsel for Respondents No. 7 & 8 | … | Mr. Debraj De |
2
JUDGMENT
Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata : 11th March, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Instant appeal has arisen against order dated 27.12.2024, passed by Learned DRT-III, Kolkata, in S.A. 1056 of 2024 (Kalicharan Saha & Another -vs- Federal Bank Limited & Others) whereby Learned DRT passed an interim order staying operation of the District Magistrate’s order dated 03.02.2024.
3. Feeling aggrieved, Appellant preferred the instant appeal.
4. As far as facts are concerned, they are not very much in dispute. The Appellant Bank is the secured creditor. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the SARFAESI Applicants, namely, Kalicharan Saha and Joydeb Saha who are neither borrower, nor guarantor nor mortgagor of the secured creditor. Further when the proceedings were initiated by the Secured Creditor against the Borrower, SARFAESI Application, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was filed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 with I.A. 9935 of 2024 challenging the order passed by the Learned District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act wherein Learned DRT, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, observed that the original copies of the Deeds; Deeds of Conveyance 1-122 of 2004 and 1-1179 of 2004, were required to be looked into
3
Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata by the DRT. Further Learned DRT observed that since the order of the District Magistrate was passed on 3.2.2024 which was to be executed within six months but it was not executed hence further opportunity was given to the Secured Creditor for seeking extension of time staying operation of the District Magistrate order dated 3.2.2024.
5. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that Learned DRT has erred in staying the order of the District Magistrate dated 3.2.2024. It is submitted that the SARFAESI Applicants are neither borrower nor guarantor nor mortgagor of the Bank; rather, they are vendors of the Respondents No. 7 and 8 namely, Sri Jayanta Banik and Smt. Bana Bithi Banik. Loan was sanctioned on the basis of the documents submitted by the Respondent No. 7 and 8. Learned Counsel for Appellant has shown the Deeds and submitted that prima facie, perusal of the Deeds would reflect that the Deeds were not executed for .34 satak and .10 satak rather were executed for 34 satak and 10 satak respectively. Consideration mentioned in the Deeds if calculated, would give a conclusive finding that the deeds were executed for the entire portion of land. It is further submitted that no petition or suit has yet been filed by the SARFAESI Applicants either for rectification or cancellation of the deeds. Learned Counsel further submits that after passing of the order by the District Magistrate, it was incumbent for the executive authorities to seek extension for executing the orders.
4
Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata 6. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that the Deeds were executed for .34 satak and .10 satak respectively, as would appear from the original records. It is further submitted that the time fixed by the District Magistrate in the order cannot be extended by the District Magistrate.
7. As far as impugned order is concerned, it would be appropriate that the Learned DRT stayed the operation of the District Magistrate order dated 3.2.2024 till the next date of hearing by fixing the date for hearing of I.A. 9935 of 2024. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that no specific finding is recorded by the Learned DRT about the rights of the SARFAESI Applicants as to whether the Deeds were executed for .34 satak and .10 satak or 34 satak and 10 satak; which is yet to be determined by the Learned DRT.
8. As far as the issue of extension of time by the Learned District Magistrate is concerned, it is within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to extend the time on appropriate application. Learned DRT has also given an option to the Secured Creditor for seeking extension of time by the District Magistrate. Since I.A. 9935 of 2024 is still pending for adjudication, any finding at this stage recorded by this Appellate Tribunal may affect the ultimate decision of the DRT. Accordingly, I leave it open for the Learned DRT to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed on the basis of the observation made in the body of the order.
5
Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata
O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed on the basis of the observation made in the body of the order. However, Learned DRT is expected to decide I.A. 9935 of 2024 expeditiously.
Parties are directed to appear before the Learned DRT on 7th April, 2025 for hearing of I.A. 9935 of 2024.
It is made clear that if any adjournment is sought by the SARFAESI Applicants, Learned DRT would be at liberty to vacate the interim order if it finds that adjournment is being sought for not on bona fide grounds.
No order as to costs.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
File be consigned to Record room.
Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 11th March, 2025 14/ac
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the DRAT should allow the interim stay on the District Magistrate order considering the pending SARFAESI application.
Whether the District Magistrate has jurisdiction to extend time for execution of its order.
The Authorised Officer, The Federal Bank Limited
Kalicharan Saha
Joydeb Saha
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
