191090008962024_87758bc23877a47d27a729d1ad230478.pdf

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                        
   HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
    Appeal No. 133 of 2024
      (Arising out of T.S.A. 17 of 2023 in DRT-I, Kolkata) 
Order No. 17
06.8.2025 
Byasmuni   Gupta   &   Another    
         … Appellants
           -Vs- 
Punjab National Bank          
       
    …  Respondents
Mr. 
Saptarshi 
Banerjee 
with 
Mr. Kuntal Banerjee and Ms. Baby 
Das, Learned Counsel for the 
Appellant
Mr. Soudip Pal Choudhuri with
Ms. Saswati Sikdar,  
Learned 
Counsel for Respondent
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
 Instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellants 
against an order passed by Learned DRT-I, Kolkata in  
T.S.A. 17 of 2023 (Byasmuni Gupta & Another -vs- Punjab 
National Bank) dated 29th August, 2024 whereby Learned 
DRT dismissed the S.A., being infructuous.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, Appellants 
preferred the appeal.
S.A. 153 of 2021 (T.S.A. 17 of 2023) was filed by the 
Appellants for a relief that the Demand Notice dated 
1.11.2016, 17.10.2016 issued under Section 13 (2) of the 
Act and the Possession Notice dated 7.1.2017, under Section 
13 (4) of the Act be set aside. Further, e-Auction Sale Notice 
dated 19.7.2021 be also set aside with consequential reliefs.

2
Learned DRT recorded finding that for the purpose of 
limitation publication of e-Auction Notice dated 19.7.2021 is 
taken into consideration while the S.A. was filed on 5.8.2021 
but challenge to the order of the District Magistrate dated 
24.1.2020 and Possession Notice dated 7.1.2017 are not 
within the period of limitation.  
Accordingly, since Sale 
Notice dated 19.7.2021 has
become infructuous , S.A. is 
not 
maintainable 
and 
was 
accordingly 
dismissed 
as 
infructuous.
Learned Counsel for Appellant would further submit 
that earlier an S.A. 287 of 2017 was filed by the Appellants 
challenging the Possession Notice dated 11.9.2017 which 
was allowed and the Possession Notice was set aside with 
liberty to the Bank to proceed afresh which order was not 
challenged.  It is further submitted that in the pending S.A. 
although initially the Sale Notice dated 19.7.2021 was 
challenged but an I.A. 1294 of 2023 was filed on 18.9.2023 
challenging the Sale Notice dated 8.9.2023 which was not 
disposed of by the Learned DRT and is still pending.  
Accordingly, since I.A. was not disposed of wherein 
challenge was made to the subsequent Sale Notice, 
dismissal of the S.A., holding to be infructuous, is against 
law.
Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank 
would submit that the impugned order was passed by 
Learned DRT on the basis of the Possession Notice dated 

3
7.1.2017. Sale Notice dated 19.7.2021 becomes infructuous. 
Accordingly, the S.A. was disposed of as infructuous.
During the course of hearing a specific query was made 
to the Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank as to why 
subsequent Possession Notice, under Section 13 (4) of the 
SARFAESI Act, 2002 (in short ‘Act’), was issued on 
11.9.2017 when already a notice under Section 13 (4) of the 
Act was issued by the Bank on 7.1.2017.  No specific reply 
could be placed on record except that what is stated in the 
reply of appeal is the submission in the appeal.
Bare perusal of the record would reveal that pending 
S.A., I.A. 1294 of 2023 was filed by the Appellants which 
requires adjudication on its own merits. 
The impugned judgment, holding the whole S.A. to be 
infructuous, without considering the pending I.A. itself 
makes the impugned order perverse. We are not recording 
any finding on merits of the matter regarding validity and 
legality of the Notices, under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 
dated 7.1.2017 or the effect of the judgment of 2.8.2017 
which are to be looked into by the Learned DRT if it is 
permissible under the law at this stage.
Further, since the impugned order, holding the S.A. 
infructuous in the absence of any finding regarding the 
pending I.A. 1294 of 2023, 

…