Writ Petition (C) No. 3771 of

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                          Appeal No. 40  of 2021
      (Arising out of SA No. 76 of 2020 in DRT Cuttack)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, represented 
through its Chief Manager, Madhupatna, Cuttack 753010 
 
... Appellants
       -Vs- 
Sri Anil Kumar Sahoo son of Late Narayan Chandra Sahoo, at Jyostna 
Kutir, Hira Cement Lane, P.O. Chandini Chowk, P.s. Lalbag, District 
Cuttack 753002
        ... Respondent
Mr. S. Pal Chowdhury, Learned 
Counsel, 
Ms. 
Saswati 
Sikder,
Learned 
Counsel 
for 
the 
Appellant
None for the Respondent 
JUDGMENT                         :   
On    14th    July, 2023
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Instant Appeal has arisen against a judgment and order 
dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Ld. DRT Cuttack allowing 
the SA No. 76 of 2020 Anil Kr. Sahoo Vs. State Bank of 
India.  
A SARFAESI Application under Section 17 (1) of 
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter 
referred to as the Act) was filed by the Respondent for 
cancelling the auction sale and for refund of the deposit 
money of Rs. 18,72,760/- on the ground that he is an 
auction purchaser in an auction sale held on 06.08.2016.  
The required amount as per law was deposited by him.  
Despite depositing the amount possession was not delivered 

2
to him.  It is further stated that Writ Petition (C) No. 3771 of 
2016 was pending before the Hon’ble High Court when the 
auction sale was conducted but this fact was not mentioned 
in the auction sale notice.  Accordingly, Application under 
Section 17 of the Act was preferred by the auction 
purchaser.
Appellants herein contended that the possession could 
not be delivered due to interim order passed by the Hon’ble 
High Court.  Thereafter, a Writ Petition was also filed by the 
SARFAESI Applicant which was also dismissed.  Appellant did 
not comply the provisions of Rule 9(4) and 9(5) of the 
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.  Accordingly, 
there was a forfeiture made by the Appellant.  As far as 
description of sale notice is concerned, it is submitted that 
issue is raised with mala fide and ulterior motive by the 
SARFAESI Applicant as the Writ petition was filed by the 
borrowers seeking time to repay the dues of the Bank.
Having considered the submissions made by the 
Learned Counsel for the parties, Ld. DRT allowed the 
SARFAESI Application holding that non-disclosure of the 
details of Writ Petition in the auction sale notice is in 
violation of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) 
Rules, 2002.  Accordingly, S.A. was allowed.  
Feeling aggrieved,  
Appellant Bank preferred  
the 
Appeal.  
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.  
Respondent did not appear despite notice.

3
Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the 
Writ Petition No. 3771 of 2016  was filed by the borrower for 
extension of time for making payments.  It has no relevance 
with the auction sale.  
Hence, there could not be any 
violation of the Rules.  
Rule 8(5) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 
2002   are as under:
Rule 8(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002
 Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-
rule (1) of rule 9, the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the 
property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the 
secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell 
the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of the 
following methods:—
(a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar 
secured assets or otherwise interested in buying the such assets; or
(b) by inviting tenders from the public;
(c) by holding public auction; or
(d) by private treaty.
Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002
(6) 
The authorised officer shall s

…