Dismissed

Ramdarbar Projects LLP v. International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

DRT1 May 2025SA/240/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant, claiming status as a lessee, challenged the public auction of secured assets alleging non-disclosure of address and invalid lease creation post-demand notice. The Tribunal held the sale valid despite minor address omission and dismissed the application, directing possession to the auction purchasers.

What did the court decide?

Sale of secured assets confirmed. Order for delivery of possession to auction purchasers. Pending applications disposed of.

Ramdarbar Projects LLP versus International Asset… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶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. 240 of 2024

¶5

Ramdarbar Projects LLP,

¶6

a Limited Liability Partnership, registered pursuant to and in terms of the Section 58(1) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and having its registered office at 2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Police Station - Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata -700 071

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

-versus

¶9

International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, a company incorporated under and in terms of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at A 601 / 602 /605, 6th Floor, 215 Atrium, Kanakiya Spaces, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 093;

¶10

and

¶11

The Authorised Officer, International Asset Reconstruction CompanyPrivate Limited, A 601 / 602 /605, 6th Floor, 215 Atrium, Kanakiya Spaces, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 093;

¶12

Suresh Kumar Dalmia, son of Dwraka Prasad Dalmia, residing at 1, Wood Street, Kolkata - 700 016; and

¶13

Smt. Rita Dalmia, wife of Suresh Kumar Dalmia, residing at 1, Wood Street, Kolkata - 700 016.

¶14

Respondents.

¶15

Present:

¶16

For Applicant: Mr. Arijit Bardhan, Ld. Counsel For Respondents: Mr. D. Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel

¶17

For Auction Purchaser: Mr.SouritraGanguly, Ld. Counsel

¶18

J U D G E M E N T

¶19

Delivered on 1^st May,2025

¶20

¶21

The SarfaesiApplicant has filed application u/s 17(1)of the Sarfaesi Act2002 challenging the sale of the secured assets as the public notice dated 16/08/2023 doesn’t disclose complete address of the commercial space and car parking space alleging non-disclosure of commercial space in the public notice filed this application by lessee of the commercial space.

¶22

It is pleaded by the Applicant that sale of the “commercial space”with four car parking space is illegal and invalid and challenged the sale of the property on 5^th September,2023 and also challenged the sale dated 27^th spetember,2023 by defendant no. 1,2 in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4 and prayed to declare the public auction on 16/08/2023 is bad and illegal and to set aside the alleged sale.

¶23

The Respondent ARC has filed affidavit in opposition to the SA that the agreement dated 20/06/2014 is between the Applicant and bank and property has been mortgaged on 26/06/2010 by deposit of title deed no. 6527/2009 owned by Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF), who has failed to pay the loan and account became NPA. Thereafter Allahabad Bank assigned their loan to International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited with underlying securities pertaining to the loan M/s. Uniworth Gems &Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Mortgaged is continued from the loan sanctioned and transferred to IARC by Registered assignment agreement. M/s. Uniworth Gems &Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. obtained financial assistance of sum of Rs. 14 Crore and created security interest in respect of the said property by Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF), by deposit title deed as per lease deed and mortgage was created on 29/06/2010. Respondent Bank has annexed Declaration by Guarantor-Mortgagor byAffidavit vide annexure ‘A’.

¶24

¶25

Allahabad Bank has issuedDemand Notice on 23/02/2012 whereas lease deed was executed on 20/06/2014. As per provision of Section 13(13) of the Sarfaesi Act, Lease deed cannot be created without the consent of the mortgagee. Therefore, the case of the Applicant as a bonafide lessee is not tenable under law. Applicant has challenged the sale on the ground of improper description of the property for which Applicant could not take notice of public auction.Respondent Bank submitted for dismissal of the SA as SA is not maintainable.

¶26

Respondent nos. 3 and 4 who are auction purchasers have filed supplementary affidavit. The Applicant claimed to be a lessee by virtue of Lease Agreement dated 20/06/2014 but Respondent ARC has filed evidence that mortgage has been created on 26/06/2010 which is prior to the Lease Agreement. The lease agreement was created by Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF) in favour of lessee RAMDARBAR PROJECTS LLP, the Sarfaesi Applicant.The said Dharmesh Kumar Baid (HUF) created the mortgage and stood guarantor and mortgaged the property by a declaration dated 26/06/2010.

¶27

It appears from the publication of sale notice filed by the Applicant that Demand Notice issued u/s 13(2) was issued by the Allahabad Bank which was mortgaged with Indian Bank and assigned the debts of M/s. Uniworth Gems &Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Respondent no. 1 ARC. From the publication of sale notice it appears that the Lease Deed was executed after issuance of Demand Notice. According to section 13(13) of the Sarfaesi Act, a borrower cannot create any Lease Agreement which is a transfer of the property without consent of the Secured Creditor, so the lease Agreement is fraudulent.

¶28

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that as per the Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant no. 3 by Respondent no. 1 the property

¶29

¶30

has been described as Unit No. BG (Southern Unit), 22, Camac Street, Block-B, having super built up area about 3550 Sq. Ft. situated on the Ground floor of the building being Block No. "B", together with 4 Car Parking Space being Nos. 126 to 129 in the Basement, K.M.C Ward 63, P.S. Shakespeare Saranl, Kolkata 700 017 but in the publication of sale notice address mentioned as Unit No. BG (Southern Unit), Camac Street, Block-B, having super built up area about 3550 Sq. Ft. situated on the Ground floor of the building being Block No. "B", together with 4 Car Parking Space being Nos. 126 to 129 in the Basement, K.M.C Ward 63, P.S. Shakespeare Saranl, Kolkata 700 017. Street no. 22 is absent but other description of the property is clearly mentioned. Only absence of street no. 22 in the publication of sale notice is not a ground to set aside the sale already conducted.

¶31

Applicant is not a borrower, but claims to be a lessee after creation of Security interest and issuance of demand notice. Ld. Counsel for applicant argued that the applicant could not participate in the public auction due to absence ofstreet no. in the public notice is not tenable as sale has already been conducted and the auction purchasers have acquired right, title and interest in the asset. Lease Agreement is void as created after issuance of Demand Notice.Therefore, SA is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered as follows:

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

i) SA/240/2024 is dismissed on contest against the Respondents. Consequently, pending I.A.s are also disposed of.

¶34

ii) The secured asset has been sold to Defendant nos. 3 and 4 who are entitled to get possession of the secured asset.

¶35

iii) Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deliver possessionof the asset to the Auction Purchasers by

¶36

¶37

taking possession of the secured asset from the Applicant.

¶38

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the

¶39

Tribunal’s website.

¶40

File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶41

(Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 1^st May,2025

¶42

(Ambuja Mohan Das)

¶43

Presiding Officer

¶44

Order Sheet (continuation) Case No. SA/240/2024 RAMDARBAR PROJECTS LLP Vs. INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Office action with date and dated Date of Order with Signature Signature ofParties when the Order necessary

¶45

¶46

1^stMay,2025	Present:
	For Applicant: Mr. Arijit Bardhan, Ld. Counsel
	For Respondents: Mr. D. Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel For Auction Purchaser: Mr.SouritraGanguly, Ld. Counsel Matter was heard in open Court on 12.03.2025. The detailed order in five pages annexed separately. The gist of the order is as follows:
	O R D E R
	i) SA/240/2024 is dismissed on contest against the Respondents. Consequently, pending I.A.s are also disposed of.
	ii) The secured asset has been sold to Defendant nos. 3 and 4 who are entitled to get possession of the secured asset.
	iii) Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deliver possession of the asset to the Auction Purchasers by taking possession of the secured asset from the Applicant.
	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 1^st May,2025. (Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer

Ramdarbar Projects LLP v. International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdarbar Projects LLP v. International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumkum Ghosh versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Minakshi Roy versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Ezaz

Sri Swagat Paul versus Hdfc Bank

Mr Amitava Dey versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited and Anr.

Central Bank of India versus Sri Tarun Kumar Saha