Allowed

Ms as Ceramic Grinder v. State Bank of India

DRAT17 Mar 2025REGULAR APPEAL/42/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal against a DRT order dismissing a Securitisation Application. The Tribunal remanded the matter for impleading the Auction Purchaser as a necessary party before deciding the application afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; Appeal allowed; Appellant directed to implead Auction Purchaser; Learned DRT to decide application afresh after hearing.

Ms as Ceramic Grinder versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 42 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appeal No. 42 of 2024 (Arising out of S.A. 211 of 2021 in DRT-I, Kolkata)

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

M/s. A.S. Ceramic Grinder, Village – Naksha, G.T. Road (Near Kunti Cold Storage), Police Statrion Mogra, District: Hooghly, PIN – 712 148.

¶7

… Appellant

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

The Authorised Offifcer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Burdwan Ullhas Gate No. 1, P.O. Jotaram, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, P.I.N. - 713 104;

¶10

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Burdwan Ullhas Gate No. 1, P.O. Jotaram, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, P.I.N. - 713 104.

¶11

… Respondents Counsel for Appellants … Mr. Samik Basu Mr. Kausik Das Counsel for Respondents … Mr. Debashis Saha Ms. Rajashri Bhattacharya Ms. Sucheta Pal JUDGMENT : 17^th March, 2025

¶12

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶13

1. Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 3^rd April, 2023, passed by Learned DRT-I, Kolkata, dismissing S.A. 211 of 2021 (M/s. A.S. Ceramic Grinder -vs- State Bank of India).

¶14

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

3. It appears that the Securitisation Application was filed by the Appellants, who are SARFAESI Applicants before the Learned DRT, challenging the order of the District Magistrate dated 8.2.2021. Certain facts are borne out from the record that the Appellants are the Borrowers of the Respondent Bank, who availed loan facility. Account became irregular and was classified as N.P.A. Notices under Section

¶16

¶17

Appeal No. 42 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) were issued following the procedural requirement under the Act. As per the Respondent Bank notices were duly served. Thereafter, order was obtained from the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act.

¶18

4. The Appellants herein challenged the action of the Bank by filing a Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the Act which was contested by the Bank. However, pending S.A. secured assets were put to sale. Auction was conducted on 28^th December, 2021 wherein the Auction Purchaser deposited the required amount as per law. Sale Certificate was issued on 25^th January, 2022. This fact was brought on record by the Bank but the Auction Purchaser was not impleaded as Respondent in the S.A. proceedings.

¶19

5. Learned DRT dismissed the S.A. by passing the impugned judgment and order.

¶20

6. It is the settled legal proposition that party to the lis should be given an opportunity of hearing. It appears that when sale certificate was issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser, he became necessary party and should have been impleaded as necessary party in the Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the Act. But was not impleaded and a judgment was passed against the Appellants. Since Auction Purchaser was a necessary party an opportunity of hearing should have been granted to him.

¶21

7. On the above ground alone, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order needs to be remanded to Learned DRT for impleading the Auction Purchaser as opposite party in the petition under Section 17 of the Act.

¶22

8. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶23

O R D E R E D

¶24

Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 3^rd April, 2023, passed by Learned DRT-I, Kolkata, dismissing S.A. 211 of 2021 (M/s. A.S. Ceramic Grinder -vs- State Bank of India) is set aside.

¶25

¶26

Appeal No. 42 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata

¶27

Appellant herein is directed to implead the Auction Purchaser as opposite party in the application under Section 17 of the Act. Thereafter, notice be issued to the Auction Purchaser.

¶28

After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, Learned DRT should decide the S.A. afresh. All the issues raised by the parties are left open to be determined by the Learned DRT.

¶29

Parties are directed to appear before the Learned DRT on 21^st April, 2025.

¶30

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶31

File be consigned to Record room.

¶32

Order pronounced in open Court.

¶33

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶34

Dated: 17^th March, 2025 12/ac

Ms as Ceramic Grinder v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms as Ceramic Grinder v. State Bank of India

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Raw and Boiled Rice Mill versus State Bank of India

Smt Alpana Paul and Anr. versus Union Bank of India

Ms Royal Wealth Company and Others versus State Bank of India

North Eastern Development Finance Corporation NEDFi versus M/s Brahmputra Tecologies

PNB Housing Finance Limited versus Rajesh Gupta

Sowrya Constructions versus Canara Bank