Rashmi Ranjan Das v. State Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by a borrower against an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal directing the bank to stop proceedings pending a deposit of dues. The Tribunal held the order lacked illegality and the appeal lacked merit. Consequently, the inability to proceed and applications for waiver/stay were disposed of without adjudication on facts.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage; the stay application was also disposed of.
1
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA
HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson Misc. APPEAL Dy No. 696 of 2025 (Arising out of IA 694 of 2025 in SA No. 81 of 2025 – DRT-Cuttack) 14.07.2025
- Rashmi Ranjan Das residing at Tolonk, PO Motiganj PS Balasore Sadar, Dist. Balasore, 756003.
--Vs--
- A.O., State Bank of India, SARB, Plot no. 778, 1st floor, Sahid Nagar, Maharsi College Road, Bhubanesware, Dist. Khordha 751007.
For Appellant : Mr. Nalini Kanta Dash, ld. Adv. For Respondent: The Appellate Tribunal
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
Instant appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed by learned DRT Cuttack in S.A. 81 of 2025 [Rashmi Ranjan Das Vs. A.O. State Bank of India] wherein learned DRT passed an order in favour of the appellant directing the bank not to proceed further subject to deposit of Rs.86,62,280/- by the appellant in two instalments, first Rs.43,31,140/on or before 12.07.2025 and second Rs.43,31,140/- on or before 12.08.2025,in case of default interim order shall stand vacated.
It is submitted by the appellant that first demand notice issued u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 21.03.2019 wherein debt due was Rs.33,07,826/-. Thereafter another Sec. 13(2) noticed was issued on 05.07.2022 wherein debt due was Rs.46,90,791.97. Subsequently, E auction sale notice was issued on 08.05.2025 wherein secured debt for recovery was Rs.86,62,280/-. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that secured debt in first Sec. 13(2) notice was Rs.33,07,826/-
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal challenging the order directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit in an E-auction sale notice has merit.
Whether the issuance of fresh notices increasing the secured debt amount within three years is illegal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rashmi Ranjan Das
- respondent
A.O., State Bank of India
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rich Engineers and Developers through Rohan Pinayak Mohanty versus Punjab National Bank
Rich Engineers and Developers through Rohan Pinayak Mohanty versus Punjab National Bank
Yanamandra Vijaya Lakshmi versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank
Punjab National Bank versus Sri Korrakuti Venkata Saketh Kumar