Allowed

Sri Byasmuni Gupta, v. Punjab National Bank

DRAT6 Aug 2025REGULAR APPEAL/133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal set aside the DRT order dismissing a stay application as infructuous. It held the order perverse because the DRT failed to consider a pending intra-curiam application. The matter was remanded to the DRT to decide the pending application on merits after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to DRT-I, Kolkata to decide I.A. 1294 of 2023 afresh on merits.

Sri Byasmuni Gupta, versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Appeal No. 133 of 2024 (Arising out of T.S.A. 17 of 2023 in DRT-I, Kolkata)

¶4

Order No. 17 06.8.2025 Byasmuni Gupta & Another … Appellants -VsPunjab National Bank … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Saptarshi Banerjee with Mr. Kuntal Banerjee and Ms. Baby Das, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

¶6

Mr. Soudip Pal Choudhuri with Ms. Saswati Sikdar, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

Instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellants against an order passed by Learned DRT-I, Kolkata in T.S.A. 17 of 2023 (Byasmuni Gupta & Another -vs- Punjab National Bank) dated 29^th August, 2024 whereby Learned DRT dismissed the S.A., being infructuous.

¶9

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, Appellants preferred the appeal.

¶10

S.A. 153 of 2021 (T.S.A. 17 of 2023) was filed by the Appellants for a relief that the Demand Notice dated 1.11.2016, 17.10.2016 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act and the Possession Notice dated 7.1.2017, under Section 13 (4) of the Act be set aside. Further, e-Auction Sale Notice dated 19.7.2021 be also set aside with consequential reliefs.

¶11

¶12

Learned DRT recorded finding that for the purpose of limitation publication of e-Auction Notice dated 19.7.2021 is taken into consideration while the S.A. was filed on 5.8.2021 but challenge to the order of the District Magistrate dated 24.1.2020 and Possession Notice dated 7.1.2017 are not within the period of limitation. Accordingly, since Sale Notice dated 19.7.2021 has become infructuous , S.A. is not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

¶13

Learned Counsel for Appellant would further submit that earlier an S.A. 287 of 2017 was filed by the Appellants challenging the Possession Notice dated 11.9.2017 which was allowed and the Possession Notice was set aside with liberty to the Bank to proceed afresh which order was not challenged. It is further submitted that in the pending S.A. although initially the Sale Notice dated 19.7.2021 was challenged but an I.A. 1294 of 2023 was filed on 18.9.2023 challenging the Sale Notice dated 8.9.2023 which was not disposed of by the Learned DRT and is still pending. Accordingly, since I.A. was not disposed of wherein challenge was made to the subsequent Sale Notice, dismissal of the S.A., holding to be infructuous, is against law.

¶14

Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank would submit that the impugned order was passed by Learned DRT on the basis of the Possession Notice dated

¶15

¶16

7.1.2017. Sale Notice dated 19.7.2021 becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the S.A. was disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

During the course of hearing a specific query was made to the Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank as to why subsequent Possession Notice, under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (in short ‘Act’), was issued on 11.9.2017 when already a notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act was issued by the Bank on 7.1.2017. No specific reply could be placed on record except that what is stated in the reply of appeal is the submission in the appeal.

¶18

Bare perusal of the record would reveal that pending S.A., I.A. 1294 of 2023 was filed by the Appellants which requires adjudication on its own merits.

¶19

The impugned judgment, holding the whole S.A. to be infructuous, without considering the pending I.A. itself makes the impugned order perverse. We are not recording any finding on merits of the matter regarding validity and legality of the Notices, under Section 13 (4) of the Act, dated 7.1.2017 or the effect of the judgment of 2.8.2017 which are to be looked into by the Learned DRT if it is permissible under the law at this stage.

¶20

Further, since the impugned order, holding the S.A. infructuous in the absence of any finding regarding the pending I.A. 1294 of 2023, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Learned DRT afresh in accordance with law. Learned DRT should also record a finding about the

¶21

¶22

maintainability of I.A. 1294 of 2023 in the absence of any amendment in the application under Section 17 of the Act.

¶23

Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.8.2024 is set aside. Matter is remanded to DRT-I, Kolkata to decide the I.A. 1294 of 2023 afresh on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the body of the judgment. Needless to mention that Learned DRT should afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.

¶24

File be consigned to Record room.

¶25

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶26

Order pronounced in open Court.

¶27

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶28

Dated 6^th August, 2025 19/ac

Sri Byasmuni Gupta, v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Byasmuni Gupta, v. Punjab National Bank

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

Union Bank of India versus Smt Peddu Mallika

Union Bank of India versus Aditya Constructions

Shyam Sundar palreddy versus Union Bank of India

Anurag Himatsingka versus Smfg India Credit Co. Ltd.

United Medicals and Others versus State Bank of India

Ragolu Raghupati Naidu versus Central Bank of India