The DRAT allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the DRT. The court held that impleading the auction purchaser was mandatory before quashing the sale notice because their title was affected.
Impugned order dated 06.07.2023 set aside; matter remanded to DRT-II Kolkata to implead auction purchaser and decide afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
Appl. No. 99 of 2023
(Arising out of S.A. 06 of 2023 in DRT-II Kolkata)
Order No.
19.02.2025
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
... Appellant
--Vs--
2.Shri Bittu Debnath residing at S/o. Shri Santosh Debnath, 498/N, Ward C/20, D-2/4, Vidyasgar Pally, Benachity Durgapur - 713213,
3.Goutam Ghosh residing at D-35, Vidhyasagar Pally, Benachity, Durgapur- 713213
... Respondents
For Appellant : Ms. Anindita Das, ld. adv.
For Respondent : Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya, ld. adv.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Instant appeal has arisen against the judgement and order
passed by the learned DRT-II Kolkata on 06.07.2023 in S.A. No.
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.
2
by the borrower became irregular and was classified as NPA. Proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to
as Act) were initiated by the appellant bank. Notices were issued
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
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 be also quashed.
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.
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
the sale price in accordance with law and sale certificate was also issued in his favour.
3
allowed the I.A. along with S.A. setting aside the sale notice by
granting consequential relief. A direction was also issued to refund the sale price to the auction purchaser by the secured creditor bank.
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
the proceeding as respondent in the securitization application filed u/s 17 of the Act. Auction purchaser was a necessary party
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,
when the auction process was conducted and sale certificate was
issued in favour of the auction purchaser, he became necessary
4
party to the proceeding and he should be impleaded in the
securitization proceeding, which was not done. Hence, impugned
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.
O R D E R
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.
File be consigned to record room.
5
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.
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of February, 2025.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson
Dated :19.02.2025 17/pkb
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal committed an error in quashing the auction sale without impleading the auction purchaser.
Whether the auction purchaser is a necessary party in securitization proceedings affecting their title.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
INDIAN BANK
BIPLOB SANTOSH DEBNATH
BITU DEBNATH
GOUTAM GHOSH
ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
