Allowed

Smt Alpana Paul and Nr v. Union Bank of India

DRT16 Apr 2024SA/58/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal addressed an application by borrowers challenging a Demand Notice, Possession Notice, and a Sale Notice under the SARFAESI Act. The bank argued strict adherence to statutory timelines and lack of redemption offer. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices and sale.

What did the court decide?

SA/58/2022, IAs/1377/2023 and 2487/2023 dismissed; SARFAESI action and sale on 18/11/2022 upheld as valid.

Smt Alpana Paul and Nr versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – 1, KOLKATA JEEVANSUDHA BLDG. 9^TH FLOOR, 42/C, J.L.NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA – 700071

¶3

BEFORE SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA No. 58 of 2022

¶5

Smt. Alpana Paul, wife of Sri Dipak Kumar Paul, residing at 11/2, Kedarnath Deuty Lane, P.O.- Kadamtala, P.S.- Bantra, Howrah – 711101.

¶6

Smt. Shibani Paul, wife of Sri Rupchand Paul, residing at 11/2/3, Kedarnath Deuty Lane, P.O.- Kadamtala, P.S.- Bantra, Howrah – 711101.

¶7

Applicants

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Union Bank of India, a Government of India undertaking, a statutory Banking Company, under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, inter alia carrying on business at and from its Howrah South (e-CB) Branch, 506, G. T. Road, Ground Floor, Near Vivek Vihar, Howrah – 711101.

¶10

Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, 263, G. T. Road (South), Near Kazipara More, 1^st Floor, Howrah – 711102.

¶11

Chief Manager, Union Bank of India having its office at 263, G. T. Road (South) Near Kazipara More, 1^st Floor, Howrah – 711102.

¶12

Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Howrah South (e-CB) Branch, 506, G. T. Road, Ground Floor, Near Vivek Vihar, Howrah – 711101.

¶13

M/s. Chandimata Metal Works, (Partnership Firm), At 11/2, Kedarnath Deuty Lane, P.O.- Kadamtala, P.S.- Bantra, Howrah – 711101.

¶14

¶15

Sri Sudin Paul, (Partner of M/s. Chandimata Metal Works), son of Sri Dilip Paul, residing at 11/2/2, Kedarnath Deuty Lane, P.O.Kadamtala, P.S.- Bantra, Howrah – 711101.

¶16

Smt. Barnaly Paul, (Partner of M/s. Chandimata Metal Works), wife of Sri Sudin Paul, residing at 11/2/2, Kedarnath Deuty Lane, P.O.Kadamtala, P.S.- Bantra, Howrah – 711101.

¶17

The Director, M/s. Vulipini Overseas Private Limited, 5B, Sarkar Lane, Ram Mandir, 2^nd Floor, Kolkata – 700007.

¶18

………..Respondents.

¶19

Present:

¶20

For Applicant: Mr. Prasenjit Pal, Mr. Lal Mohan Hajra, Mr. Somesh Panja, Ms. Anuradha Hajra and Ms. Mautusi Hazra, Ld. Counsels For Respondents: Mr. Pankaj Mukherjee and

¶21

Mr. Somesh Panja, Ms. Anuradha Hajra and Ms. Mautusi Hazra, Ld. Counsels

¶22

Mr. Sanjay Chakraborty, Ld. Counsels

¶23

For Auction Purchaser: Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Delivered on 16^th April, 2024

¶26

The Sarfaesi Applicants have filed application under section 17(1) of the Sarfaesi Act and have challenged the sarfaesi action of Respondent Bank i.e. Union Bank of India, such as Demand Notice dated 26/10/2021. It is contended by the Sarfaesi Applicants that pursuant to the Demand Notice Applicants submitted representation to Respondent Bank dated 03/11/2021 vide letter ‘C’. Respondent Bank has replied to the said representation dated 16/11/2021 asking the Applicant to repay the loan amount failing which Bank will proceed to enforce the security interest by attaching and selling the property in order to

¶27

¶28

satisfy the outstanding dues and reply of the Bank has been annexed vide letter ‘D’.

¶29

It is contended by the Applicant in the Demand Notice outstanding dues of Respondent Bank is Rs. 41,20,521.44 and it is not described in detail how the said amount has been claimed. It is contended by the Sarfaesi Applicant that the said Demand Notice is bad as the said notice does not comply section 13(3) of the Sarfaesi Act,2002.

¶30

Respondent bank has issued Possession Notice under section 13(4) dated 27/01/2022 and the said Possession Notice is also illegal as the Demand Notice is illegal. The Applicant in the SA has challenged Demand Notice and Possession Notice and prayed to quash the Demand Notice and Possession Notice.

¶31

The Applicants thereafter filed IA/1377/2023 challenging the Demand Notice and also Possession Notice. It is also contended by the Applicant that that Respondent Bank also filed application u/s 19 of the RDB Act. Being no. OA/121/2022 before this Tribunal. In the IA Applicant/s have challenged the order of the Ld. District Magistrate. The Applicant came to know about the order of Ld. District Magistrate on 02/06/2023 by RTI application. The Applicants have offered for settlement at Rs. 43,78,541.44. The Applicants have filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 13662/23 and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court vide order dated 23/06/2023 disposed of the Writ petition observing that the possession has already been taken by the Respondent Bank in pursuance of the law and Sale Certificate has

¶32

¶33

been issued as long back as on 16^th February,2023. This IA has been filed on 10/07/2023 and sale notice dated 25/10/2022 for sale of the property on 18/11/2022 and sale certificate has been issued on 16/02/2023.

¶34

Thereafter the Applicant has filed another IA/2487/2023 on 24/11/2023 challenging the sale conducted on 18/11/2022 and Sale Certificate issued on 16/02/2024 and to quash the order of the Ld. District Magistrate dated 31/01/2023 and direction to the Respondent Bank to conduct e-auction of the secured property and allow the petitioner to participate in the e-auction.

¶35

Respondent Bank filed affidavit in opposition to the SA and IAs after the sale completed and Auction Purchaser has already been impleaded as party to the SA as Respondent no. 8. Respondent Bank has filed objection to the IA/2487/2023 and also filed supplementary affidavit. The Auction Purchaser has also filed objection to IA/2487/2023.

¶36

Heard Ld. Advocate for the Sarfaesi Applicant, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank and the Ld. Counsel for the Auction Purchaser in respect of S.A. No. 58 of 2022 along with other pending IAs on 19.03.2024. Parties have filed written notes of arguments.

¶37

The Applicants have filed IA/2487/2023 challenging the Sale Notice dated 25/10/2022 for e-auction on 18/11/2022 contending that no opportunity was provided to redeem the properties u/s

¶38

¶39

13(8) of the Sarfaesi Act,2002. Respondent Bank in the Supplementary affidavit has enclosed Sale Notice dated 25/10/2022 for Sale on 18/11/2022 giving details of reserved price in respect of three properties and sent Sale Notice by post to the Applicant which was delivered on 31/10/2022. The sale was conducted on 18/11/2022. So there is clear 15 days notice to the Applicant. But they have not tendered outstanding dues with interest to Respondent Bank to redeem the secured property. After sale has been conducted and Sale Certificate having been issued on 16/06/2023 the Applicants have challenged Sale Notice on 24/11/2023.

¶40

8. The Applicants have relied upon the authority of Honble Telangana High Court in the matter of Sri Sai Annadatha Polymers vs The Canara Bank dated 27t h June, 2018. The Auction Purchaser has relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Celir Llp vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. dated 21s t September, 2023.

¶41

9. In the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Celir Llp vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Honble Telangana High Court in the matter of Sri Sai Annadatha Polymers vs The Canara Bank. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that challenge to sale after the sale conducted without tendering the outstanding dues, the borrower waived right to redeem.

¶42

10. Besides Respondent Bank has duly proved that demand Notice, Possession Notice having been issued as per provision of Sarfaesi Act, and Rules2002. When the Sale Certificate has been

¶43

¶44

issued the borrower has no right to challenge the sale. There is no merit in the Sarfaesi Application as well as IA/1377/2023 and IA/2487/2023. It is ordered as follows:

¶45

i) SA/58/2022, IA/1377/2023 and IA/2487/2023

¶46

are dismissed on contest against the Respondents.

¶47

ii) Sarfaesi Action and sale conducted by

¶48

Respondent Bank on 18/11/2022 are valid.

¶49

iii) Right of Auction Purchaser is upheld in respect

¶50

of the property sold.

¶51

iv) Consequently, other pending I.A.s ,if any, are also disposed of.

¶52

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the

¶53

Tribunal’s website.

¶54

File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶55

(Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 16^th April, 2024.

¶56

(Ambuja Mohan Das)

¶57

Presiding Officer

¶58

Order Sheet (continuation)

¶59

Case NO. SA/58/2022	Smt. Alpana Paul & Anr vs. Union Bank of India & Anr.
Date of	Order with Signature Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary

¶60

¶61

the Order
16/04/2024	Present:
	For Applicant: Mr. Prasenjit Pal, Mr. Lal Mohan Hajra, Mr. Somesh Panja, Ms. Anuradha Hajra and Ms. Mautusi Hazra, Ld. Counsels For Respondents: Mr. Pankaj Mukherjee and Mr. Sanjay Chakraborty, Ld. Counsels
	For Auction Purchaser: Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel
	Matter was heard in open Court on this the day of 19.3.2024.
	The detailed order in six pages annexed separately. The gist of the order is as follows:
	O R D E R i)SA/58/2022, IA/1377/2023 and IA/2487/2023 are dismissed on contest against the Respondents. ii)Sarfaesi Action and sale conducted by Respondent Bank on 18/11/2022 are valid. iii)Right of Auction Purchaser is upheld in respect of the property sold. iv)Consequently, other pending I.A.s ,if any, are also disposed of. Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website. File is consigned to the Record Room. (Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 16^thApril, 2024.
	(Ambuja Mohan Das)
	Presiding Officer

¶62

Smt Alpana Paul and Nr v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Alpana Paul and Nr v. Union Bank of India

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

Similar cases

Amit Prasad versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Shyamal Karar and Ors. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Ms Gupta Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. versus Axis Bank

Mrs Jhuma Shaw and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Yogendra Sah and Anr.