Allowed

Indian Bank v. Shri Biplob Santosh Debnath

DRAT19 Feb 2025REGULAR APPEAL/99/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the bank's appeal, setting aside the DRT's order that set aside a forced auction. The Tribunal remanded the matter, holding the auction purchaser was a necessary party whose right to a hearing was denied. The DRT must implead the purchaser and decide afresh.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded to DRT-II Kolkata to implead auction purchaser and decide afresh.

Indian Bank versus Shri Biplob Santosh Debnath — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶4

Appl. No. 99 of 2023

¶5

(Arising out of S.A. 96 of 2023 in DRT-II Kolkata)

¶6

Order No.

¶7

19.02.2025

¶8

INDIAN BANK having registered office at Udrej Bhawan, 8 G T Road West, Upper Chelidanga, Asansol, Paschim Bardman 713304

¶9

2.Authorised Officer, Indian Bank residing at Durgapur City Centre Branch, Saroj Mukhopadhya Bhawan, Hare Krishna Konar Sarani, City Centre, Post Office, - Durgapur, Dist. Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal- 713216

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

--Vs--

¶12

Shri Biplob Santosh Debnath having office at 498 N, Ward C 20 D 2/4 Vidyasagar Pally Benachity Durgapur - 713213

¶13

2.Shri Bittu Debnath residing at S/o. Shri Santosh Debnath, 498/N, Ward C/20, D-2/4, Vidyasgar Pally, Benachity Durgapur - 713213,

¶14

3.Goutam Ghosh residing at D-35, Vidhyasagar Pally, Benachity, Durgapur- 713213

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Appellant : Ms. Anindita Das, ld. adv.

¶17

For Respondent : Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya, ld. adv.

¶18

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶19

Instant appeal has arisen against the judgement and order

¶20

passed by the learned DRT-II Kolkata on 06.07.2023 in S.A. No.

¶21

06 of 2023 and IA. No. 738 of 2023 (Sri Biplob Santosh Debnath &Anr. Vs. Indian Bank &Anr.) whereby S.A. and I.A. were allowed.

¶22

¶23

As per pleadings of the parties, respondent no.1 and 2 are

¶24

the borrower and guarantor of the appellant bank. Loan availed

¶25

by the borrower became irregular and was classified as NPA. Proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to

¶26

as Act) were initiated by the appellant bank. Notices were issued

¶27

u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, which was challenged by the respondent 1 and 2 with the relief that notice u/s 13(2) and 13(4) be quashed and Rule 8(6) notice issued under Security Interest

¶28

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 be also quashed.

¶29

Pending securitization application a put up application being

¶30

I.A. 738 of 2023 was filed seeking same relief as sought in the S.A. and further relief to restrain the secured creditor bank from auctioning the secured asset.

¶31

Opposition to the I.A. was filed by the bank wherein apart

¶32

from the other grounds it was stated in Para 12 that secured asset has already been sold by way of e-auction in favour of respondent no.3 herein, Mr. Goutam Ghosh, who has deposited

¶33

the sale price in accordance with law and sale certificate was also issued in his favour.

¶34

¶35

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned DRT

¶36

allowed the I.A. along with S.A. setting aside the sale notice by

¶37

granting consequential relief. A direction was also issued to refund the sale price to the auction purchaser by the secured creditor bank.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶39

At the very outset it is to be observed that learned DRT was

¶40

well within its knowledge that auction sale has been conducted and sale certificate has been issued thereby direction was issued for refund of sale price. This fact is duly mentioned in reply to the I.A. by the bank. But the auction purchaser was not impleaded in

¶41

the proceeding as respondent in the securitization application filed u/s 17 of the Act. Auction purchaser was a necessary party

¶42

whose right title interest are affected by the impugned judgement. It is settled legal proposition that right of hearing should be afforded to all necessary parties. Direction or order against a party cannot be passed behind his back. Admittedly,

¶43

when the auction process was conducted and sale certificate was

¶44

issued in favour of the auction purchaser, he became necessary

¶45

¶46

party to the proceeding and he should be impleaded in the

¶47

securitization proceeding, which was not done. Hence, impugned

¶48

order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, matter is liable to be remanded back to learned DRT to decide afresh after impleading auction purchaser as respondent thereafter affording opportunity of hearing to the parties decide the matter afresh.

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.07.2023 is set

¶51

aside. Matter is remanded back to learned DRT II Kolkata with a direction to implead the auction purchaser as respondent in the securitization application filed u/s 17 of the Act. Thereafter opportunity of filing pleadings and hearing should be granted to the parties in accordance with law. Learned DRT should decide the matter as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 submits that he will move an application for impleadment within a month. Accordingly, parties are directed to appear before learned DRT-II Kolkata on 24.03.2025 for hearing.

¶52

File be consigned to record room.

¶53

¶54

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.

¶55

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19^th day of February, 2025.

¶56

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶57

Dated :19.02.2025 17/pkb

¶58

Indian Bank v. Shri Biplob Santosh Debnath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Shri Biplob Santosh Debnath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pabitra Pran Saikia versus Union Bank of India

Priyanka Shyam versus Rojot Kumar Baruah

Punjab National Bank versus Rojot Kumar Baruah

Jm Financial Assets Recontruction Company Private Limited versus Maa Durga Commotrade Private Limited

Nihar Ranjhan Das versus Bank of India

Bengal Rajnagar Realtors Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India