Dismissed

Indrani Chatterjee v. State Bank of India

DRT1 Sept 2025SA/182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal disposed of an application challenging a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act by State Bank of India. The applicant alleged fraud, forgery, and collusion. The Tribunal rejected these claims, noting its lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate fraud without civil court decrees, and noted apparent procedural compliance by the bank.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application was dismissed on contest; pending less than applications (if any) were dismissed.

Indrani Chatterjee versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL-3,KOLKATA} Order Sheet (Continuation)

¶2

caseNo,sa/	La2l2022	@kof rn	dia&ors.
			Office action
		Orderwithsignature	withdateand dated Signature of^{parties when}
order Dt.01.09.2025	Order^pron court. Sarfaesiapp sameisth any, areals passedbyt S.A.lsthus bodyofthe^j Intheres contest.	^{ounced(vide9 separatesheets)inopen} ORDERED lication^{beingS.A.782of2022beand the} us^{dismissedoncontest.PendingI.As,if} o dismissed.^{Interimorder,ifany,inforce} his Tribunalstands vacated ^disposedof^{intermsofthefindinginthe} ^udgment. ult sA^{beingsAy'182/2022isdismissedon}
		(KamalDe) Presiding^gfficer DRT-3,Kolkata

¶3

¶4

BEFORE THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-III KOLKATA}

¶5

PRESENT:^{.SRI KAMALDE.}

¶6

PRESIDING OFFICER.

¶7

S.A. No. 182 OF²⁰²²

¶8

DATE OF DELIVERY^{OF oRDER:01 09 2025}

¶9

Indrani Chatterjee^{of 230, Kanungo Park, mailingaddress P-27'} Kanungo Park,^{P.O. Garia, PoliceStation Patuli, Kolkata-700084}

¶10

... Applicant

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

State Bank of India^{having its office al 79/2,ShyamaPrasad} Mukherjee Road,^{Kolkata-700026.}

¶13

The Authorized Officer,^{StateBank of India of 7912 having its office at} Kalighat Branch,^{ShyamaPrasadMukherjee Road, Kolkata-700026'}

¶14

J, Prodyot Roy, son of^{latePrabhat ChandraRoy of D-13,Baghajatin} Station Road,^{Police Station} -^{Jadavpur,Kolkata-700032'}

¶15

Sujit Kumar^{Sarkar, son of Samar Sarkarof U1, SouthPurbachal} Road, Police Station^{Garfa, Kolkata-700078.}

¶16

... Defendants.

¶17

¶18

Counsel for the^APP|icant:- Mr. Sandip Prasad Shaw Counsel for respondentl^Bank Mr. S Pal Choudhari Counsel for resPondent^No.3 None Counsel for respondent^No.4 None

¶19

JUDGEMENT

¶20

Challenge in the^{present SA is with regardto the impugnedpossession} notice dated 08.08.2021^{issuedby the respondent No 1 bank and the} purported order dated 22.02.2022^passed by^{the District Magistrate,} South 24 Parganas.

¶21

SA applicant's^{case is that the respondent bank took action under the} SARFAESI Act,^{2OO2 and the rules framed thereunder by issuing notice} under Rule 8(1) dated^{08.08.2021 and also by obtaining order under} Section 14 of the Act^{ln respectof the subject property as statedin} the schedule of^{the S.A.}

¶22

It is stated that the^{petitionerwas initiallythe owner of 3 cottahs13} chittacks of land along^{wlth the buildingthereon at premisesNo'230,} Kanungo Park,^{mailingaddress P-27,KanungoPark,P O' Garia,Police} station Patuli,^{Kolkata-700084and the samewas allotted to the} petitioner by the Government oF^{West Bengal, Land & LandReforms} Department under a^{development schemein the year 1999more} preciously as on 15th February,^1999.

¶23

It is stated that the^{petitionerduly entered into an agreement of} development of the^{said landwith the respondentNo 3 and thesaid}

¶24

¶25

development agreement^{was enteredinto betweenthe petitionerand} the respondent^{No.3 on 20th March, 2000 and a power of attorney was} also executed by the^{petitioner in favour of the respondentNo 3 only} for the^purpose of development^{of the said property.}

¶26

It is stated that the^{basiccriteria as was envisagedin such} development^is that^{the respondent No.3 will give to the petitioner3} flats on three different^{floors on the newlyconstructed buildingto be} constructed thereon^{and in terms of the said developmentagreement,} the^petitioner was^{entitledto one flat on the frontside at the ground} floor, one flat on the^{back side at the second floorand one flat on the} front side of the^{1st floor.}

¶27

It is stated that the^{respondent No.3 duly constructeda new building} and handed over^{physical possessionof the owner's allocation being} three flats,

¶28

¶29

It is stated that all^{of a sudden on or about 14th August, 2019 the} respondent No.1 affixed^{a possesslonnotice issuedunder Rule8(1) of} the SARFAESI^{Act, 2002 on the flat whichis on the 1st floorbelonglng} to the^{petitioner. The petitioner contacted the officeof the respondent} No.1, however, the^{respondentNo.1 ascertainedthat there maybe} some mistake^{withregardto the noticeand requestedthe petitioner to} ignore the same.

¶30

It is stated that the^{name of the borrowerwas mentionedin the said} notice as Sujit^{Kumar Sarkar, the respondent No'4 herein'}

¶31

It is stated that on^{or aboutSeptember,2021 the men, servant and} agents of the^{respondent No.1 visited the petitioner's premisesand} threatened the^{petitioner to vacate the said premisesand informed} the^petitioner that^{the said owner of the said flat is one Sujit Kumar} Sarkar who has^{obtained loan from the respondentNo 1 bank} allegedly mortgaging^{the petitioner'sflat' The omcials of the} respondent No.1^{bankShowed certaindocuments to the petitioner} which includes an^{alleged deed of conveyanceand powerof attorney'} Itlsallegedthatthepowerofattorneywascompletelyforged'starting from the^{petitioner's signatureand also the photographwhich was} pasted in the said Power^{of attorney'}

¶32

It is alleged that^{the respondentNo 3 completely forgeda powerof} attorneyⁱⁿ the^{year 2006 in the nameof the petitioner and basedon} such fraud^{power of attorneyhad allegedto have sold the petitioner's} flat to the^{respondent No.4.} It is alleged^{that the respondentNo'3 and 4 in collusionand} conspiracy^{with respondent No'1 haveentered into such clandestine} transaction.

¶33

It is stated that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in collusion with^the respondent No.1 had sanctioned the loan to the respondent^Nos. 3^and 4 and they have siphoned of the fund accordingly.

¶34

It is stated that on 11th October, 2021 the^petitioner through their Learned Advocate also issued a notice with regard to the fraud committed, to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India.

¶35

It is stated that the respondent No.1 is deliberately harassing the petitioner with the petitioner flat situated at the first floor.

¶36

It is stated that the respondent No.1 obtained an order from the Ld DI'4, South 24 Parganas dated 22,02.2022.

¶37

It is stated that the description of the property given in the order dated 22.02.2022 is bad in law.

¶38

It is stated that there is no flat number such as FI and the super built up area indicated is also wrong.

¶39

SA applicant has^prayed for setting aside the possession notice dated 14.08.2019 and all subsequent actions initiated by the respondent bank in terms of the prayer made in S.A.

¶40

Respondent No.1 bank has filed affidavit in opposition contending inter alia that the SA is not sustainable having no merit and it should be dismissed in limine.

¶41

¶42

It is stated that respondent No.1 bank sent notices under Section 13(2) dated 10.01.2012 of the SARFAESI Act dectaring the loan account of the applicant as NPA on 26.12.2010. Respondent No.1 bank has also issued notice under Section 13(4) dated 14.08.2019 in accordance with law.

¶43

It is stated that the SA applicant has failed to demonstrate any substantive materlal calling for interference as to the action initiated by the respondent No.1 bank under SARFAESI Act.

¶44

It is stated that the applicant has no locus standi to initiate and/or to move the said application.

¶45

It is stated that the allegations and/or statements contained in the S.A. are bad, incorrect, speculative and afterthought.

¶46

It is denied and disputed that all of a sudden the respondent ban has affixed a possession notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the SARFAESI Rules,2002.

¶47

It is stated that the subject property has been mortgaged with the respondent bank.

¶48

It is denied that the respondent bank requested the petitioner to ignore the said notices.

¶49

It is stated that the secured property has been sold to the respondent No.4 (borrower) by the respondent No.3 and the respondent bank sanctioned credit facilities in favour of the respondent No.4 in the year

¶50

2009 on the basis of the deed of conveyance which is mortgaged with respondent bank.

¶51

It is stated that the subject property was mortgaged after compliance of all procedures and the borrower, respondent No.4 executed banking documents and also handed over the original deed of conveyance to the respondent bank.

¶52

It is stated that the SA applicant is not in any connected to the property of the respondent No.4.

¶53

It is stated that the respondent No.4 is the borrower of the respondent bank and he mortgaged the subject property to the respondent bank. It is denied that the men, servant and agents of the respondent No.1 threatened the petitioner.

¶54

It is denied that the respondent bank has allegedly mortgaged the petitloner's flat.

¶55

It is denied that the power of attorney was completely forged. It is denied that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in collusion and conspiracy with respondent No.1 have entered into such clandestine transaction.

¶56

It is denied that the respondent has entered into a fraudulent transaction.

¶57

¶58

It is stated that the Ld DM, South 24 parganas under Memo No.1126 dated 72.71.2021 passed an order in favour of the respondent bank after and upon lawful compliance of all the procedure thereof. It is denied and disputed the description of the property in the purported order of the DM is wrong.

¶59

It is denied and disputed that the petitioner has not authorized or executed any power of attorney in favour of the respondent No.3. It is denied that the fraud has been practiced upon the petitioner.

¶60

It is stated that the petitioner has accepted that the power of attorney has been executed in favour of the respondent No.3.

¶61

It is denied that the Ld DM without verifying the material on record ' has passed the order.

¶62

It is stated that the credit facilities has been sanctioned in favour of the respondent No.4 against the said mortgaged property standing in the name of respondent No.4 and all the action has been taken by the respondent bank is strictly in accordance with law.

¶63

SA applicant has also filed affidavit in reply to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent bank.

¶64

It is reiterated that the applicant has never obtained any loan from the State Bank of India, being the respondent No.1 nor that she had mortgaged any of the flats to the respondent No.1.

¶65

¶66

It is stated that as per^paragraph No.5 of the affidavit^{in opposition,} the date of issuance of^{possessionnotice is dated 08.08.2021but as} per paragraph No.6 of the reply dated 20.70.2021 issued by the^Ld Advocate of State Bank of India, the date^{of possession notice is dated} 05.08.2021 which has been affixed in the building.

¶67

It is stated that the respondent bank has acted in^{collusionwith the} borrower, deliberately orchestrated and manlpulated^{the entlre} sequence of events to create a false narrative.

¶68

It is stated that the respondent no.3 has^purportedly sold the applicant's^property belonging to the applicant.

¶69

It is stated that the respondent No.3 has deliberately and completely forged a power of attorney in the^year 2006, falsely claiming to act on behalf of the applicant.

¶70

SA applicant has^prayed for setting aside the SARFAESi action taken by the respondent bank along with the^possession notice dated 14.08.2019 issued by the respondent bank.

¶71

Respondent No.3 being the developer and respondent No.4 being the borrower have not flled any affidavit in opposition, None of them also contested the case.

¶72

¶73

Decision with reasons -

¶74

The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is the owner of 3 flats on three different floors on the newly constructed building and the respondent No.3 duly constructed a new building and handed over physical possession of the owner's allocation being three flats, to the petitioner as referred to in the^petition.

¶75

The petitioner ventilated her grievance that all of a sudden on or about 14th August, 2019 the respondent No.1 affixed a possession notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on the flat which is on the 1st floor belonging to the petitioner i.e. the subject property. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had never obtained loan from the respondent No.1 bank, being State Bank of India and he had also never mortgaged any of the flats to the respondent No.1 bank.

¶76

The petitioner has alleged that one Sujit Kumar Sarkar who has obtained loan from the respondent No.1 bank allegedly mortgaged the petitioner's 1't floor flat. He has also alleged that the deed of conveyance dated 8th December, 2009 and the power of attorney dated 06.09.2006 are false and fabricated.

¶77

It is stated that the respondent No.3 completely forged a^power of attorney in the^year 2006 in the name of the^petitioner and based on such fraud power of attorney had alleged to have sold the^petitioner's flat to the respondent No.4.

¶78

¶79

It is alleged that the respondent^{No.3 and 4 in collusionand} conspiracy with respondent^{No.1 have enteredinto such clandestine} transaction.

¶80

It is stated that the^{respondent No.1 is dellberately harassingthe} petitioner with the petitioner flat situated at the first^floor. It is alleged that the respondent^{No.1 has obtained order from the} office of the DM, South 24^Patganas under^{Memo No.1126dated} 12.17.2021 but no copy of the^{purportedorder of theDM was handed} over to the^petitioner.

¶81

The respondent No.1 bank took on 2L.03.2022^{took physical} possession of the subject property i.e. the^petitioner 1't floor Flat^illegal with malafide intention and forcibly drove out the^{petitionerfrom her} residence.

¶82

It is alleged that the action of the respondent bank is^completely illegal and malafide and the respondent bank in highhanded manner took^{physical possession} of the subject^property which is not at all mortgaged with the respondent No.1 bank.

¶83

¶84

Ld counsel of the respondent No.1 bank on the other hand has categorically submitted that the respondent No.1 bank has executed their right in respect of the subject mortgaged property against the defaulter borrower and the^petitioner is in no way connected with the proceeding.

¶85

It is stated that the subject property has been mortgaged with the respondent No.1 bank after lawful compliance of all the^procedure thereof and one Sujit Kumar Sarkar, being the borrower, respondent No.4 herein executed banking documents and also handed over the original deed of conveyance to the respondent No.1 bank.

¶86

It is stated by the ld counsel of the respondent No.1 bank that the respondent No.1 bank has taken all steps under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in accordance to law in respect of the secured asset.

¶87

Respondent No.1 bank has flled deed of conveyance in the name of Sujit Kumar Sarkar being the borrower, the respondent No.4 herein. It appears that deed of conveyance dated 08.12.2009 has been executed in between Smt. India Banerjee as Vendor represented by her^power of attorney holder, Sri Prodyot Roy as the^party thereto of the First Part; Sri Sujit Kumar Sarkar being the^purchaser as the^party thereto of the Second Part and Sri Prodyut Roy being the Developer as party thereto of the Third Part.

¶88

I have gone through CERSAI registration, agreement of^mortgage, memo of^purported loan agreement for^granting loan as^{filed from the} side of the respondent No.1 bank.

¶89

¶90

Neither the respondent^{No.3 being} the^{developernor the respondent} No.4 being the borrower has appeared^{during the hearing of the case.} It appears that the^{petitionerhas alleged fraud as against the} respondent No.1 bank as well^{as against the respondentNo 3 being} the developer and respondent^{No.4 being the borrower.}

¶91

The^question is why the resPondent^No.1 bank,^{State Bank of India} being a nationalized bank shall commit^{fraud ln collusionwith} respondent No.3 and 4 as alleged by^{the petitioner.}

¶92

It is a settled law that one who alleges^{fraud has to establishthe} fraud. There is nothlng on record that the respondent^{No.1 bankhas} committed fraud and obtained deed of conveyance as^{mortgage from} the respondent No.4. It is difficult to accept the^{allegation of fraud as} against the respondent No.1 bank, State Bank of India, without^any concrete and acceptable evidence.

¶93

It appears that the main allegation of fraud is against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶94

Tribunal is not well equipped to determine or decide the fraud. Adjudication regarding fraud requires elaborate evidence and other paraphernalia which tribunal does not have. More so, there is no provision in SARFAESI Act to refer documents for hand writing expert etc. etc.

¶95

Moreover it appears that the^petitioner has lodged complaint against the respondent No.1 bank, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Crime as well as to the local police station. The investigating agency is supposed to unfold regarding fraud, if any in the criminal case.

¶96

Be that as it may, the question is as to whether fraud can be decided by DRT? Can a DRT pass decree holding that there is fraud? Even if best of the evidence is adduced in support of specific^pleadings of fraud under Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC, can it pass anything more than issuing a recovery certificate. All these questions came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, reported in⁽²⁰⁰⁹⁾ 8 SCC 646 and it is held that DRT is a tribunal constituted for specific^purpose and no independent issue can be initiated before it by a debtor. It cannot^pass decree. It can only pass Recovery Certificate. In the present case there shall be oral and documentary evidence by both sides to prove and dis-prove of respective allegations on fraud golng much beyond the books of accounts and banking notes and this would warrant intergatories as well as examination and cross examination of witnesses.

¶97

¶98

¶99

Considering the nature^{scope power and jurisdictionof the DRTas} revealed in the discussions^{of the case of NaharIndustrial Enterprises} Ltd. (Supra), it does not^{appear with allegation of the nature} mentloned in the^plaint under^{questions can be decided by a DRT IT} can be done by a^{Civil Court only. Moreover,S.A' applicant has not} also urged before the^{Civil Court for declarationthat the alleged deed} of conveyance dated 08.12.2009^{in the nameof respondentNo.4 is} void and invalid or for cancellation^{thereof.S.A. applicanthasnot also} moved before Civil Court for^{cancellation of the alleged power of} attorney in favour^{of the respondent No.3 or for declaration that it is a} vold document. In absence of any^{decreethereof by anycompetent} court of law, the said^deed of^{conveyance dated 08.12.2009sustalns} in law.

¶100

Prima facie it appears that the respondent^{No.1 bank issued} possession notice dated 08.08.2021 in accordance to law and affixed the^possession on or about^{14.08.2021on the secured asset.The} borrower did not turn up to^{challengethe demandnotlceunder} section 13(2) dated 10.01.20212 of the^{SARFAESI Act declaring the} loan account of the applicant as NPA on^26.72.20L0.

¶101

It appears that the^power of attorney dated^{06.09.2006was executed} by the^petitioner in favour of the respondent^No.3.

¶102

From the deed of conveyance dated 08.12.2009 it appears that^the subject property has been sold and conveyed in favour of^the respondent No.4 who availed the credit facilities sanctioned by^the respondent No.1 bank in the^year 2019 creating the subject^property as mortgage.

¶103

Prima facie it appears that the subject^property has been^mortgaged with the respondent No.1 bank.

¶104

It appears that that the subject^property was mortgaged^after compliance of all^procedures and the borrower,^{respondentNo.4} executed banking documents and also handed over the^{original deed} of conveyance to the respondent bank.

¶105

It cannot be said that the respondent No.l bank hatched up^and conspired with respondent Nos.3 and 4 and entered into the^alleged clandestine transaction.

¶106

It is hard to believe that the respondent^{No.1 bank has entered into} clandestlne transaction.

¶107

It appears that the respondent No.1 bank obtained the^purported order dated 22.02.20?2 from the DM, south 24^{Parganasfor taking} physical possession of the secured property and on 26.02.2022^pasted the order on the subject^property.

¶108

¶109

It appears that the^{D14, South 24 Parganas verifying all materialson} record and being^{satisfied with the 9-pointsaffldavit affirmedbefore} him has^passed the^{purported order, as per version made in affidavit} in opposition^{filed by the respondent No.1bank'}

¶110

It appears that the^{respondent No.1 bank took physical possession of} the secured^{property on 3L.03.2.022on the basis of the purported} order dated^{22.02.2022passed by the DM,South24 Parganasand an} inventory list was also^{preparedand the samewas signed by the} daughter of the^{petitioner, as per verslon of respondentNo 1 bank in} affidavit in oPPosition.

¶111

Schedule of the^{propertyas reflected in the scheduleof possession} notice dated 08.08.2021^{also tallies with the schedule"8" of the deed} of conveyance dated^{08'12.2009.But neitherof the partieshas} produced the order of DM before^{this Tribunal.}

¶112

Prima facie I do not^{find any illegality in theSARFAESIproceedingas} initiated by the^{respondent No 1 bank.}

¶113

S.A. is devoid^{of any merit as suchand is dismissed'Hence,}

¶114

ordered

¶115

Sarfaesi application^{beingS.A. 782 of 2022 be and the same is thus} dismissed on contest.^{Pending l.As, lf any, are also dismissedlnterim} order, if any, in^{force passedby this Tribunal standsvacated'}

¶116

Copy of the ludgement/Final^{Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's website'} File is consigned^{to the Record Roomafter observing all formalities'}

¶117

(Dictated to steno, transcribed^{by him, corrected,} signed

¶118

and^{pronounced by me in the open Court on this} 1't Day of September,²⁰²⁵⁾

¶119

¶120

( KAMAL DE ) PRESIDING OFFICER.

Indrani Chatterjee v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrani Chatterjee v. State 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

Uco Bank versus M/S Roll X Technologies and Ors.

Mr Alimonsur Mistry and Anr. versus Yes Bank

Mr Samir Biswas and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Shibu Roy

Canara Bank versus Ms H S Enterprise and Anr.

Punjab National Bank versus Abdul Nayim Chowdhury