The Debts Relief Tribunal held that the SARFAESI application filed by the applicant was not maintainable because she was not the borrower. Consequently, the sale notice was quashed and the proceeding was dismissed as not maintainable in law.
Sale notice dated 15.02.2024 quashed; SARFAESI application dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRTBUNAL-3, KOLKATA Order Sheet (Continuation)
Case No. S.A./ 71012023
Sujata Dutta vs. Indian Bank
| Dateof Order |
Orderwithsignature | Officeaction withdateand dated Signature of parties when |
|---|---|---|
| Order No.06 pt.11.03.2024 Sl.No.13 |
Ld counselMr. MritunjoyHalder appearsforSarfaesi applicant. LdcounselMr. ShivMangalSinghwithMs. JahanAra Kulsum appearsforrespondentbank. I-A. 632of2024istakenupforhearing. Heardldcounselforbothparties. Considered. InfilingthispetitiontheSarfaesiapplicanthas challengedtheimpugnedsalenoticedated 15.02.2024issuedbytherespondent bankfixingsale on 20.03.2024. Itisallegedthatsherecelvedthesalenoticeon 19.02.2024andthesaleisfixed on 20.03.2024. Itis arguedthat30days noticeis notgiventoher forsale oftheproperty. Ldcounselforrespondentbank submitsthatthe petitionisnotmaintainable.Hesubmitsthatthe petitionerisnotborrower.Heisalsoarguedthat Sarfaesiappllcatlonas filed bythepetitionerisnot maintainableon thegroundthatSujata Dutta,the present applicantisnottheborrower.Theborrower whoisherhusbandisnotturningupbeforethe Tribunal tofileanyS.A.orI.A. Itis statedthatS.A.hasalsobeenfiled bySujata Dutta,wifeofTapasDutta.SujataDuttahasno coonectionwiththeloanaccount.lvloreover,the verificationintheS.A.ismadebyoneBiswajit Goswami,authorized representativeofSujataDutta. Itappearsthattheapplicant isnottheborrower of loanaccount, no notice underSection13(2)wasalso addressedorserved uponher.She hasnocauseof actiontofileeitherS.A.orI.A. |
| InstantI.A. is | disp | osedo | f asbeingnot |
|---|---|---|---|
| maintainable. | |||
| Accordingly,S.A. | being | No.710 | of2023isalso |
| dismissed asbeing n | ot maln | tainable | inlaw. |
| PRE D |
(KAMALDE) SIDINGOFFICER RT-III,KOLKATA |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the SARFAESI application is maintainable when the applicant is not the borrower.
Whether the impugned sale notice is valid in the absence of proper service.
Whether a notice under Section 13(2) addressed to the wife of the borrower satisfies legal requirements.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sujata Dutta
Indian Bank
KAMALDE
SIDING OFFICER RT-III, KOLKATA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
