191090110082018_46b58e2ae1a7d993993c3f2c3f2cab59.pdf

Appeal No. 230  of  2018-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
  Appeal No. 230 of 2018
            (Arising out of S.A. 485 of 2013 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
M. Sarojana. W/o Balaiah, R/o H. No. 10-14-2017, Nyalkal 
Road,Nizamabad District. 
             … Appellant
         -Versus- 
1.
State Bank of India, Shivaji Nagar Branch, Nizamabad, Nizamabad 
District;  
2.
Sri Tumma Srinivas, S/o T. Pundarikam, R/o 10-12-12, Gajulapet, 
Nizamabad.
    …  Respondents 
Counsel for the Appellant
…       Mr. Nemani Srinivas  
Counsel for Respondents  
…       Mr. Pijush Kanti Ray
Mr. S. Bandopadhyay
JUDGMENT                         :     12th July, 2023
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
The instant appeal arises against a judgment and order dated 7th 
May, 2018, passed by the Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad, dismissing 
S.A.485 of 2013. Feeling aggrieved Appellant has preferred the 
present appeal.   
2.
As per the pleadings of the parties the Appellant availed a loan 
of  Rs.2.00 lac after creating equitable mortgage. Loan instalments 
were not paid accordingly the account was classified as N.P.A. 
Thereafter, SARFAESI action was taken by Bank by issuing notices 
under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 
3.
SARFAESI action was challenged by the Appellant by preferring a 
SARFAESI Application on various grounds. Respondent Bank filed 
opposition before the Learned DRT. Learned DRT framed following 
issue for determination:
“Whether the Appellant has made valid ground for quashing the 
SARFAESI  proceedings,  i.e.  demand notice, possession notice
and auction notices as initiated by the Respondent Bank against 

2
      
Appeal No. 230  of  2018-DRAT-Kolkata
the schedule property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act  and 
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.”
4.
Bare perusal of paragraph 6 of the judgment would reveal that 
no reasons are assigned for arriving at the finding by the Presiding 
Officer. Paragraph 6 is reproduced as under :
“6.
I have gone through the material grounds on record 
meticulously.  The demand notice dated 08.06.2013 was served. 
The possession notice (symbolic) dated 07.09.2012 was 
published in Eenadu and Indian Express and as such no 
irregularities found in the impugned possession notice. The 
demand notice, possession notice and sale notices are barred by 
limitation and auction notice is without any deviations. 
Therefore, the S.A. is liable to be dismissed.” 
5.
It is a settled legal proposition that an order should always be a 
speaking order wherein it should reflect the grounds upon which the 
Learned DRT have arrived at a particular conclusion.  The grounds 
taken by the Appellant should also be considered before accepting or 
rejecting the same.  If reasons are not given in the order, it is an 
arbitrary exercise of power by the DRT. 
6.
In Brijmani Devi -vs- Pappu Kumar and Another, reported in 
(2022) 4 SCC 497, The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“22.  On the aspect of the duty to accord reasons for a 
decision arrived at by a court, or for that matter, even a quasi-
judicial authority, it would be useful to refer to a judgment of 
this Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd., v. Masood Ahmed Khan, 
(2010) 9 SCC 496 wherein after referring to a number of 
judgments this Court summarised at para 47 the law on the
point. The relevant principles for the purpose of this case are 
extracted as under: 
(a) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve 
the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it 
must also appear to be done as well.
(b) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid 
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-
judicial or even administrative power.
(c)  Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised 
by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding 
extraneous considerations. 
(d) Reasons have virtually becom

…