Dismissed

Reborn Castle Cleaning Pvt. Ltd. v. Icici Bank Limited

DRAT8 Jul 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging the DRT's rejection of their claim regarding service of reply under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Accepting the bank's evidence of postal service, the Tribunal found no illegality and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; connected InterApplications disposed of.

Reborn Castle Cleaning Pvt. Ltd. versus Icici… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

Reportable / not reportable

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA

¶4

HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

¶5

MISC. APPEAL DY. No. 524 of 2025

¶6

(Arising out of IA. 2073 of 2024 in S.A. No. 79 of 2024 – DRT-I Kolkata) 08.07.2025

¶7

Reborn Castle Cleaning Pvt Ltd. having registered office at 54/10, Debendra Chandra Dey Road, Active Business Park, West Bengal, Pin 700 015

¶8

2.Mr Probir Kumar Roy, residing at South Woods Apartments, Flat No. 4A and 4B. 4^th floor, North South West Side, Premises No. 16/2, Bosepukur Road, Kasba, West Bengal – 700042.

¶9

3.MRS AMITA ROY residing at South Woods Apartment, Flat No 4a and 4b, 4th Floor, North South West Side, Premises No 16/2, Bosepukur Road, Kasba, West Bengal 700042.

¶10

--Vs--

¶11

ICICI BANK LIMITED having office at 31, Chowringhee, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700016

¶12

2.Authorized Officer, ICICI BANK LIMITED having office at 31, Chowringhee, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700016

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.Partha Chakraborty, Ld. Adv. Mr. Rishabh Dutta Gupta, ld. Adv.

¶15

For Respondent:Mr. Kaustav De Sarkar, ld. adv.

¶16

The Appellate Tribunal

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶18

2. Appellants have challenged the impugned order dated

¶19

05.05.2025 passed by the learned DRT-I Kolkata in I.A. 2073 of

¶20

2024 arising out of S.A. 79 of 2024 (Reborn Castle Cleaning Pvt.

¶21

¶22

Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd.) whereby challenge to the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned CJM, South 24 Parganas was made, which was not accepted by the learned DRT.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that compliance of the provision of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was not made by the respondent bank, reply to the representation made against Section 13(2) notice was not received by the appellant. Secondly, substantial amount has been paid by the appellant.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that representation made under Sec. 13(3A) of the Act was duly considered and replied by the bank. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the postal receipt and postal track report filed along with the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that issue of payment of substantial amount, if any, can only be considered in the pending S.A.

¶25

Learned DRT has observed that the issue of non-compliance

¶26

of the provision of Section 13(3A) of the Act does not arise, as respondent bank filed evidence regarding communication of reply made by the bank.

¶27

¶28

Having gone through the records and the impugned order, I

¶29

find that representation made by the appellant u/s 13(3A) of the

¶30

Act was duly considered and replied by the bank. Respondent bank submitted evidence of postal receipt along with postal track report which amply proved that service of the reply upon the appellant was made. As far as issue of payment of substantial amounts is concerned, adjudication of that matter is still pending, which can be considered in the pending S.A. No other issue raised by the appellant in this appeal.

¶31

Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

¶32

I.A. 322 of 2025 is filed praying for waiver from making pre-

¶33

deposit and I.A. 323 of 2025 is filed for staying operation of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned CJM, South 24 Parganas. Since the main appeal is liable to be dismissed, question of considering both the I.A.s does not arise.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Appeal is dismissed. I.A. 322 of 2025 and I.A. 323 of 2025

¶36

are disposed of.

¶37

¶38

File be consigned to record room.

¶39

Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT. Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶40

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8^th day of July, 2025.

¶41

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶42

Dated : 08.07.2025 02/pkb

Reborn Castle Cleaning Pvt. Ltd. v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reborn Castle Cleaning Pvt. Ltd. v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahishamardini Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd. And Others

L Rajasekhar Reddy versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.

Bank of India versus Smt a Padma

Bank of Baroda versus Nirupama Devi

Punjab National Bank And Others versus Utkal Chromium Pvt. Ltd. And Others