Debate Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous appeal at the admission stage holding no perversity existed and the matter required deciding pending application regarding Section 17 of the Act.
Miscellaneous appeal dismissed at admission stage by single judge tribunal.
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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
Misc. Appeal Diary No. 392 of 2025 (Arising out of S.A. 401 of 2023 at DRT-I, Kolkata)
Order No. 02
17.4.2025 State Bank of India … Appellant -VsM/s. Sri Balmukund Polyplast Private Limited & 3 Others … Respondents
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Basudeb Mukherjee, (Virtual), Learned Counsel for Respondents
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
For Admission
Mr. Basudeb Mukherjee has put in appearance for the Respondents and undertakes to file Vakalatnama during course of the day.
Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for Appellant, as well as Mr. Basudeb Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for Respondent, and perused the record.
Instant appeal has been preferred against order dated 11.4.2025 whereby the Learned DRT held that S.A. 401 of 2023 is maintainable. Further Learned DRT gave an opportunity to the Bank to file opposition to I.A. 782 of 2025 which is an application challenging the order, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. Matter was listed on 16.4.2025.
At the very outset, Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that now the matter is listed on 28.4.2025.
Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that challenge to the Sale Notice was made by filing application under Section 17 of the
2
Act. However, the sale notice became infructuous as no auction was conducted on the date fixed. Thereafter, an issue was raised by the Appellant about the maintainability of the S.A. which was repelled by the Learned DRT by fixing the matter for hearing of I.A. 782 of 2025 filed by the Securitisation Applicant.
As far as impugned order is concerned, although it was held that the Securitisation Application is maintainable but the issue of limitation is still open which will be decided by the Learned DRT while deciding the application, I.A. 782 of 2025.
Learned Counsel DRT should look into the issue of limitation in filing Application under Section 17 of the Act primarily at the time of hearing of I.A. 782 of 2025. Since S.A. is still pending, an opportunity of opposition is granted to the Bank against I.A. 782 of 2025.
I do not find any perversity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, with the observation made in the body of the judgment, the Misc. Appeal is dismissed at the ‘Admission’ stage.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
File be consigned to Record room.
Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 17th April, 2025 05/ac
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appeals Tribunal should decide the merits of the maintenance of the appeal at this stage.
Whether the Appellant should be granted an opportunity to oppose the application regarding the sale notice.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State Bank of India
Sri Balmukund Polyplast Private Limited
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
