Allowed

Sri Utpal Kr Mondal and Anr. v. State Bank of India

DRT21 Mar 2025SA/979/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application and quashed two impugned orders by the Debt Management Officer, South 24 Parganas, regarding symbolic possession. The orders were quashed because they were undated and passed significantly beyond the statutory 30-day limit without recording the date of passing. The respondent bank was granted liberty to initiate proceedings de novo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders vide Memo No. 1160/SARFAESI dated 09.06.2022 and Memo No. 2512/SARFAESI dated 17.11.2023 are quashed; Respondent bank allowed liberty to proceed de novo under Section 14 of the SARFAES

Sri Utpal Kr Mondal and Anr. versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

caseNo.sa	/979l2022 SriutpalKr India Mondal &Anr.^Vs.Stat	e^Bank
Dateof Order	f- Orderwithsignature	Officeaction datedsignature
OrdejNo.13 Dt^.2103 .2025 sr.Nq-18 f	_ upforhearing. for bothsides.Considered. S.A.,SAaPPlicant^{challengesthe} bytheLdDM,^{South24Parganas} memoNo.¹160/SARFAESI^dated Present: -ForSAapplicant :Ldcounsel Mr.^KaushikDas ForRespondent^bank :Ldcounsel^{Mr.SoudipPalChoudhuriwith} MrO.P.Chowdhury SAl979l2O22^istaken Heardtheldcounsels lnfilingthe^instant impugnedorderPassed whichisundated^vide 09.06.2022. Itisstatedthat^{theloanaccountbecameNPAon} 17.04.2010^{andtherespondent No.2 invoked Section13(2)} oftheSARFAESI^{Actonseveraltimesandlastlyon} 09.06.2017.^{Therespondentbank alsotooksymbolic} possessionofthemortgaged^{property on 01L22Ol'1and} aqain on20.03.20lg.^{On16.12.2022,therespondentNo2} withhis men^{andagents suddenlyarrived at the site of the} mortgaged^{propertyandaffixedtheundatedimpugned} order^{passedbytheLdDl'1,South 24Parganasvidememo} No.1160/5ARFAESI^{dated09.06.2022'} Itisstated^{that theLdDMhaspassedthe orderbeyond} 30daysfrom^{filingoftheapplicationby thesecured} creditor,but^{evenaftera lapseofnearly3 yearsDateof} passingtheorder^{isnotrecordedbut thedateofmemoof} the orderisdated^{09 06.2022i.e.nearlyafter3 years'} SAapplicant^{hasprayedforsettingasideand/or} quashingtheimpugned^{orderpassedbytheLd DM, South} 24Parganas^{whichisundated,vidememo} No.1160/sARFAESI^{dated09.06.2022.} Ldcounselfor^{respondentbanksubmitsthatthe} respondent isnot^{goingtotakeany actiononthebasiso}	^f

¶3

the undated order passed by the id DM, South 24 Parganas vide Memo No.1160/SARFAESI dated 09.06.2022. He further prays for liberty to take out de novo pfoceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Perused order No,7 dated 09.05.2024 and order No.11 dated 21.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal. It appears that after passing of the order dated 09.05.2024 and 21.|t.2024, the td counsel for respondent bank submitted before the Tribunal that that the respondent bank is not going to take any measure on the basis of the impugned order passed by the Ld DM, South 24 Parganas which is undated vide memo No.1160/SARFAESI dated 09.06.2022 and even in respect of order dated t7.tl.2023 passed by the Ld DM, South 24 Parganas vide l4emo No.2512ISARFAESI dated t7 .lt.2023.

¶4

Under such circumstances, SAl979/2022 is allowed on contest. Hence, ORDERED SAI979/2O22 is allowed on contest. The impugned undated order vide memo No.116O/SARFAESI dated 09.06.2022 as well as the impugned order dated 17.L7.2023 passed by the Ld DM, South 24 parganas vide Memo No.2512/SARFAESI dated t7.Ll,ZO23 are quashed. Respondent bank is at liberty to take de novo proceeding under Section 14 in accordance to law.

¶5

(KAMAL DE, PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, KOLKATA

¶6

Sri Utpal Kr Mondal and Anr. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Utpal Kr Mondal and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaya Saha versus Indian Bank

Bank of India versus Suman Bhattacharya

Idfc Bank Limited versus Kumar Choudhary and Anr.

Canara Bank versus Tapan Kumar Bhowmik

Canara Bank versus Rabindra Nath Sarkar and Anr.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Surya Traders and Anr.