Dismissed

Ramdarbar Projects LLP v. International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT25 Sept 2025REGULAR APPEAL/65/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order dismissing a Securitization Application filed by a lessee challenging an e-auction. The Tribunal held the lessee lacked locus standi as the lease was created after the statutory notice under Section 13(2) and affirmed the original order directing possession to auction purchasers.

What did the court decide?

Original order affirming the sale and directing delivery of possession to the auction purchaser was upheld; appeal dismissed.

Ramdarbar Projects LLP versus International Asset… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appeal No. 65 of 2025

¶5

(Arising out of S.A. 240 of 2024 in DRT-I, Kolkata)

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

CHAIRPERSON

¶8

Ramdarbar Projects LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership, registered pursuant to and in terms of the Section 58(1) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and having its registered office at 2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Police Station Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, a company incorporated under and in terms of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at A 601/602/605, 6^th Floor, 215 Atrium, Kanakiya Spaces, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 093;

¶12

The Authorised Officer, International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, A 601/602/605, 6^th Floor, 215 Atrium, Kanakiya Spaces, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 093;

¶13

Suresh Kumar Dalmia, son of Dwarka Prasad Dalmia, residing at 1, Wood Street, Kolkata - 700 016;

¶14

Smt. Rita Dalmia, wife of Suresh Kumar Dalmia, residing at 1, Wood Street, Kolkata - 700 016.

¶15

		… Respondents
Counsel for Appellants	…	Mr. Arijit Bardhan Mr. Avik Kundu, Mr. Rishabh Dutta Gupta Mr. Gourab Mondal
Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2	…	Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti
Counsel for Respondent s No. 3 & 4	…	Mr. Krishna Raj Thakar Mr. Pramit Bag, Mr. Amit Pareak, Ms. Oindrila Ghosal Mr. Sanchayan Sinha
JUDGMENT	:	25^thSeptember, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

¶16

1. Instant appeal has arisen against the order and Judgment dated 1^st May, 2025 passed by the Learned DRT-I,

¶17

¶18

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata Kolkata allowing S.A. 240 of 2024 (Ramdarbar Projects LLP -vs- International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited & Others).

¶19

2. As per pleadings of the parties, an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was filed by the Appellant challenging the Auction Notice dated 16.8.2023 as illegal, inoperative and also to set aside the sale in favour of Defendants No. 3 and 4 by the Secured Creditors, Defendants No. 1 and 2, and to cancel the sale executed in their favour.

¶20

3. Brief facts of the matter are that the Securitization Applicant/Appellant is neither a Borrower nor a Guarantor; rather he was in possession of the secured assets, being Unit BG, situated in the ground floor of the building, being Block B at premises No. 22, Camac Street (Presently known as Abanindranath Thakur Sarani), Kolkata together with four car parking spaces; number 126 to 129, in the basement of the premises. Appellant wanted to acquire the same but could not participate in the e-Auction sale for want of material particulars in the e-Auction Sale Notice. By virtue of the Lease Deed dated 28^th June, 2014, lease was created in favour of the Appellants by Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF) for a period of thirty years with effect from 20^th June, 2014. Possession was delivered to the lessee. Ramdarbar Projects Private Limited was converted into a Limited Liability Partnership and known as Ramdarbar Projects LLP. 4. At per the Securitization Application in the month of October, the security guard informed the Appellant about

¶21

¶22

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶23

inspection by some person of the secured assets wherefrom the Appellant came to know that through the purported sale deed, Defendants No. 1 and 2 transferred the commercial space in favour of Defendants No. 3 and 4 on 27.9.2003. Perusal of the sale deed reveals that Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF) was the owner of the property which was mortgaged with the erstwhile Allahabad Bank. Allahabad Bank assigned the loan account to the Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2. Assignee, Respondents No. 1 and 2, in exercise of its power, conferred under Rule 8 (6) and 9 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), issued Sale Notice for auction sale of the commercial space and car parking space on ‘as is where is’ basis and ‘what it is and whatsoever there is and without recourse’ basis. Sale was conducted and was confirmed in favour of Defendants No. 3 and 4 on 8.9.2023. Sale Certificate was issued on 27.9.2023. Description of the property in the Sale Notice was not properly made. Premises number was not disclosed in the Sale Notice. Accordingly, the Appellant, although intended to participate in the e-Auction sale, could not participate for want of proper and sufficient notice of the property. In the e-Auction sale only one bidder, Defendants No. 3 and 4, participated and the e-Auction sale was conducted and confirmed in their favour which was in violation of the settled legal principles. Accordingly, a Securitization Application, under Section 17 of the Act, was filed by the Appellant which was considered by the Learned DRT.

¶24

¶25

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata 5. The Defendants/Respondents opposed the prayer and submits that the property was mortgaged in favour of the Allahabad Bank on 26^th June, 2010 by depositing of the title deeds owned by Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF) who failed to pay the loan amount and accordingly the amount became N.P.A. Thereafter, the loan account was assigned to the International Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited with underlying securities pertaining to the loan of M/s Uniworth Gems & Jewellery Private Limited.

¶26

6. Demand Notice, under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued on 23.2.2012; while the sale lease deed was executed on 20^th June, 2014 which is in violation of Section 13 (13) of the Act as no consent was obtained for creation of a lease deed. Sale was conducted in accordance with law. Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

7. Opposition is also filed by the Auction Purchasers. 8. Learned DRT recorded a finding that the Appellant is neither a Borrower nor a Guarantor but claims to be a lessee after creation of the security interest and the issuance of the Demand Notice which is against law in view of Section 13 (13) of the Act. E-Auction has already been conducted hence, the plea of the Appellant that it could not participate in the e-Auction sale is not tenable. Lease agreement is void as was created after issuance of Demand Notice. Accordingly, Learned DRT dismissed the Securitization Application with a direction that the secured assets have been sold to Defendants No. 3 and 4 who are entitled to get the possession thereof. Accordingly, Defendants No. 1 and

¶28

¶29

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶30

2 were directed to deliver possession to the Auction Purchasers. Consequent thereto, possession was also delivered in favour of Respondents No. 3 and 4. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, Appellants preferred the appeal.

¶31

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

¶32

11. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that they are the intending bidders who could not participate in the e-Auction for want of proper particulars of the property. Admittedly, premises number was not mentioned in the notice. It is further submitted that the Appellants have locus to challenge the sale as they were in possession on the basis of the lease deed and were also intending purchasers. It is further submitted that the Appellants have given an undertaking to deposit the amount deposited by the Auction Purchaser to prove their bona fides. Apart from that if sufficient details of the property would have been mentioned in the e-Auction Sale Notice, Appellants could have participated in the e-Auction and a better price could have been fetched by the Bank.

¶33

12. It is further submitted that the directions issued by the Learned DRT, after dismissing the S.A., are against law. S.A. was filed by the Appellants but direction to handover possession was given by the Learned DRT to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 which is not in accordance with law. It is further submitted that possession was also delivered within three hours of the delivery of the order by the Learned DRT.

¶34

¶35

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata 13. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 3 and 4 challenged the locus standi of the Appellants. It is submitted that Appellants are neither Borrowers nor Guarantors; they are the lessee in the premises. Lease deed was executed on 28 th June, 2024 while notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act had already been issued on 23.12.2012. Accordingly, it is in violation of Section 13 (13) of the Act.

¶36

14. Learned Counsel further submits that full description of the property was given in the Sale Notice; while the Appellants are stating that they were staying in the same premises and the Sale Notice was published in the newspaper, there was sufficient material to identify the property. The S.A. was filed after execution of the sale deed in favour of the Auction Purchasers which is simply to drag the proceedings. No plea of fraud or misrepresentation has been taken by the Appellants. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Celir LLP -vsSumati Prasad Bafna & Others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727) a concluded sale could be set aside merely on the asking of the Appellants.

¶37

15. It is further submitted that the property was duly identified as in the lease deed, details of the property are similar to the e-Auction Sale Notice except for the premises number. Even the car parking space numbers are the same. Details of the property are same except for the premises number. No prejudice could be shown by the Appellants in their favour. Further, the Appellants could not prove any

¶38

¶39

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata active action on their behalf to show that they are sincerely and extremely interested in participation of the e-Auction. No steps were taken by them to participate in the sale. Reliance is placed upon Oriental Insurance Co. Limited -vsRaj Kumari (Smt) & Others [(2007) 12 SCC 768].

¶40

16. It is further submitted that Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF) is also one of the guarantors in the sale notice, which too is sufficient for recognizing the property. There is no material on record to show that the Appellant was mislead by the non-mentioning of the premises number in the Sale Notice.

¶41

17. It is further submitted that the Appellants had no locus standi to file Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Act when Learned DRT has rightly issued the directions as Section 17 (4A) clause (d) of the Act empowers the DRT to pass appropriate and necessary orders in Securitization Application.

¶42

18. Perusal of the Securitisation Application filed under Section 17 of the Act reveals that the Appellant claims himself to be a tenant on the basis of a lease deed dated 28 th June, 2014 for a period of 30 years from the date of execution. He also claims to be in possession. On the score of his right as a lessee in the secured assets, he claims that he is a prospective bidder in the e-Auction conducted on the basis of e-Auction Sale Notice dated 16 th August, 2023 but could not participate in the e-Auction as the complete address of the secured assets were not mentioned in the e-Auction Sale Notice.

¶43

¶44

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata 19. Now we have to examine the status of the Appellant as to whether he has any ‘locus standi’ to challenge the e-Auction conducted on the basis of the e-Auction Sale Notice dated 16 th August, 2023?

¶45

20. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the e-Auction Sale Notice, e-Auction was conducted and the Sale Certificate was also issued and Deed of Conveyance was also executed.

¶46

21. As far as the question of Appellant, being Securitisation Appellant, is concerned, he claims himself to be the lessee of the premises in question. Admittedly, the secured assets th were mortgaged on 26 June, 2010 by deposit of Title Deed No. 6527 of 2009 owned by one Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF) who failed to repay the loan amount and proceedings under SARFAESI Act was initiated. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued on 23.12.2012. Agreement of Lease is subsequent to the mortgage and issuance of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Section 13 (13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 reads as under:

¶47

“No borrower shall, after receipt of notice referred to in subsection (2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor.”

¶48

22. Harshad Govardhan Sondagar -vs- International Assets Reconstruction Co. Limited [(2014) 6 SCC 1] was relied upon by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal -vsCentral Bank of India Another [(2019) 9 SCC 94]. Hon’ble Apex Court in Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal

¶49

¶50

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶51

placed reliance in paragraph 36 of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar wherein it was held that:

¶52

“ 21. In Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India (2019) 9 SCC 94, a three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court further considered the law laid down by Vishal N. Kalsaria case (supra). In Para No. 36, judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar versus International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2014) 6 SCC 1, was relied upon wherein it was held that-

¶53

"36. We may now consider the contention of the respondents that some of the appellants have not produced any document to prove that they are bona fide lessees of the secured assets. We find that in the case before us, the appellants have relied on the written instruments or rent receipts issued by the landlord to the tenant. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made "only by a registered instrument" and all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Hence, if any of the appellants claim that they are entitled to possession of a secured asset for any term exceeding one year from the date of the lease made in his favour, he has to produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour by the lessor. Where he does not produce proof of execution of a registered instrument or oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will have to come to the conclusion that he is not entitled to the possession of the secured asset for more than a year from the date of the instrument or from the date of delivery of possession in his favour by the landlord."

¶54

23. Further in paragraphs 22 and 23 it was held that:

¶55

" 22. After examining the legal and constitutional position, the Court held that while the SARFAESI Act has a laudable objective of providing a smooth and efficient recovery procedure, it cannot override the objection of the Rent Acts to control the rate of rent and provide protection to tenants against arbitrary and unreasonable evictions. To resolve this conflict, this Court held that:

¶56

22.1 The provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to override the provisions of the Rent Act. The landlord cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he has been barred from doing under the Rent Act.

¶57

22.2. While a yearly tenancy requires to be registered, oral tenancy can still be proved by showing that the tenant has been in occupation of the premises before the Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶58

¶59

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶60

22.3. The non-registration of the tenancy deed cannot be used against the tenant. For leasehold rights being created after the property has been mortgaged to the bank, the consent of the creditor needs to be taken.

¶61

22.4. Even though Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act has a non obstante clause, it will not override the statutory rights of the tenants under the Rent Control Act. The non obstante clause under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act only applies to laws operating in the same field.

¶62

23. While we agree with the principle laid out in Vishal N. Kalsaria case, that the tenancy rights under the Rent Act need to be respected in appropriate cases, however, we believe that the holding with respect to the restricted application of the non obstante clause under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, to only apply to the laws operating in the same filed is too narrow and such a proposition does not follow from the ruling of this Court in Harshad Govardhan case.

¶63

24. In our view, the objective of the SARFAESI Act, coupled with the TP Act and the Rent Act are required to be reconciled herein in the following manner:

¶64

24.1 If a valid tenancy under law is in existence even prior to the creation of the mortgage, the tenant's possession cannot be disturbed by the secured creditor by taking possession of the property. The lease has to be determined in accordance with Section 111 of the TP Act for determination of leases. As the existence of a prior existing lease inevitably affects the risk undertaken by the bank while providing the loan, it is expected of banks/ creditors to have conducted a standard due diligence in this regard. Where the Bank has proceeded to accept such a property as mortgage, it will be presumed that it has consented to the risk that comes as a consequence of the existing tenancy. In such a situation, the rights of a rightful tenant cannot be compromised under the SARFAESI Act proceedings.

¶65

24.2 If a tenancy under law comes into existence after the creation of a mortgage, but prior to the issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy the conditions of Section 65-A of the TP Act.

¶66

24.3 In any case, if any of the tenants claim that he is entitled to possession of a secured asset for a term of more than a year. It has to be supported by the execution of a registered instrument. In the absence of a registered instrument, if the tenant relies on an unregistered instrument or an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the tenant is not entitled to possession of the secured asset for more than the period prescribed under Section 107 of TP Act.

¶67

23. Thereafter, in Hemraj Ratnakar Salian -vs- HDFC Bank Limited and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 611 it was held in Para 13 that -

¶68

¶69

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata "It was further held that the Rent Act would not come to the aid of a "tenant-in-sufferance" vis-à-vis SARFAESI Act due to the operation of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. It was held as follows:

¶70

"35. The operation of the Rent Act cannot be extended to a "tenantin-sufferance" vis-à-vis SARFAESI Act, due to the operation of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. A contrary interpretation would violate the intention of the legislature to provide for Section 13(13), which has a valuable role in making the SARFAESI Act a self-executory instrument for debts recovery. Moreover, such an interpretation would also violate the mandate of Section 35, SARFAESI Act which is couched in broad terms."

¶71

24. In the recent judgment of PNB Housing Finance Limited -vs- Manoj Saha & Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1443) decided on 15^th July, 2025 Hon’ble Apex Court has placed reliance upon the judgment of Harshad Govardhan (supra).

¶72

25. Admittedly, in the present case, the lease was created after creation of the mortgage and issuance of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act which cannot be protected under the law. In Harshad Govardhan (supra) it was specifically held in paragraph 24 that if a valid tenancy under the law is in existence even prior to creation of the mortgage, the tenant’s possession cannot be disturbed by the Secured Creditor by taking possession of the property. But in the present case situation is entirely different. Tenancy was created after creation of the mortgage that too without seeking consent of the Secured Creditor. Accordingly, barred by Section 13 (13) of the Act. Accordingly, Appellant has no right or ‘locus standi’ to prefer a Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Act.

¶73

26. Appellant claims himself to be a prospective bidder who could not participate in the auction proceedings due to non-

¶74

¶75

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶76

description of the property. Perusal of the Sale Notice would indicate that all the description of the secured assets were mentioned in the notice. The description, as mentioned in the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No. 3 by Defendant No. 4 being Unit BG, (South Unit), 22, Camac Street Block B, having super built up area of about 3550 sq.ft situated on the ground floor of the building, being Block “B” together with four car parking space being number 126 to 129, in the basement, K.M.C. Ward 63, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700 017 but in the publication of the Sale Notice, complete address is mentioned except Street Number 22. All the descriptions are similar which are sufficient for locating the secured assets by any bidder who intends to participate in the auction. Further, the Appellant himself is claiming himself to be tenant in the premises, so, when the notice under SARFAESI Act was published and pasted then there was every occasion for him to know about the action of the Secured Creditor. Further, no prejudice could be proved by the Appellant by non-mentioning of the Number 22 in the Sale Notice.

¶77

27. There is another aspect of the matter that Appellant is claiming that he was a prospective bidder but could not participate in the auction due to non-description of the number of the secured assets but nothing is brought on record to show that he was seriously willing to participate in the auction rather it appears that simply he filed a Securitization Application to drag on the proceedings. Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF) who was the Guarantor was

¶78

¶79

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata also shown as Guarantor in the Sale Notice. The lease deed, allegedly executed in favour of the Appellant, was executed by Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF) which shows that if the Appellant was seriously willing and interested to participate in the e-Auction process, he was having every opportunity to participate in the e-Auction by identifying the property.

¶80

28. No case of fraud or misrepresentation is made out by the Appellant that the e-auction was conducted by fraud or misrepresentation. Hon’ble Apex Court in Celir LLP -vsSumati Prasad Bafna & Others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727) held that:

¶81

“ 218. Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already confirmed or concluded ought not to be set-aside or interfered with lightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule which does not have any fundamental procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such proceeding. In such cases, courts in particular, should be mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confirmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity.”

¶82

29. In the present case, admittedly, Sale Certificate has been issued and registered. No case of fraud or misrepresentation is pleaded or made out. Hence, on this count also there is no ground to set aside the e-Auction sale.

¶83

30. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that Learned DRT has issued certain directions which were not in accordance with law. Perusal of the impugned order reflects that Learned DRT dismissed the Securitization Application and direction was issued that Defendants No. 3 and 4, who

¶84

¶85

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata are the successful Auction Purchasers are entitled to get possession of the secured assets and Defendants No. 1 and 2 were directed to deliver the possession. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that these directions could not have been issued in a Securitization Application which was filed by the Appellant himself. I am unable to accept the submission made by the Learned Counsel as Section 17 (4-A) empowers the Debt Recovery Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in such matters. Section 17 (4-A) of the Act reads as under:

¶86

“ (4-A) Where-

¶87

(i) any person, in an application under sub-section (1), claims any tenancy or leasehold rights upon the secured asset, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts of the case and evidence produced by the parties in relation to such claims shall, for the purposes of enforcement of security interest, have the jurisdiction to examine whether lease or tenancy,-

¶88

(a) has expired or stood determined; or

¶89

(b) is contrary to section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or

¶90

(c) is contrary to terms of mortgage; or

¶91

(d) is created after the issuance of notice of default and demand by the Bank under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act; and

¶92

(ii) the Debt Recovery Tribunal is satisfied that tenancy right or leasehold rights claimed in secured asset falls under the sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (i), then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may pass such order as it deems fit in accordance with the provisions of this Act.]”

¶93

31. In the present case, as rightly held by the Learned

¶94

DRT, that the tenancy was created after issuance of the

¶95

Demand Notice. Accordingly, Learned DRT was empowered

¶96

to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 17 (4-A) clause (ii) of the Act, Learned DRT issued directions to

¶97

¶98

Appeal No. 65 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata handover possession to Defendants No. 3 and 4 in the S.A. by Defendants No. 1 and 2. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶99

32. On the basis of the discussion made above, I am of the considered view that the Learned DRT has rightly arrived at its conclusion and dismissed the S.A. Impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶100

O R D E R

¶101

Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 1^st May, 2025 passed by the Learned DRT-I, Kolkata allowing S.A. 240 of 2024 (Ramdarbar Projects LLP -vsInternational Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited & Others), is affirmed.

¶102

No order as to costs.

¶103

File be consigned to Record room.

¶104

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

¶105

Order signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶106

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶107

Dated: 25^th September, 2025 ac