191090001052025_87a5e0415c9daf863ae9a6ce125e027f.pdf

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                        
   HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
               CHAIRPERSON
Misc. Appeal Diary No. 10 of 2025
(Arising out of S.A. 66 of 2024 in D.R.T.-3, Kolkata)
Order No. 06
05.05.2025 
1. Axis Bank Limited, carrying out its functions in accordance with 
the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 having its office at SME 
Department, 01, Shakespeare Sarani, AC Market Building, 3rd 
Floor, Kolkata-700 071
… Appellant   
-Vs-
1.  Resolution Enterprises, having its office at AE-783, Sector-1, 
Salt Lake City, Kolkalta-700 064.
2. Shrirup Roychoudhary, residing at CJ-315. Sector-II, Salt Lake 
City, Kolkata-700091.
3. Sharmistha Roychoudhary, residing at CJ-315. Sector-II, Salt
Lake City, Kolkata-700091.
…  Respondents 
                       
For the Appellant(s)
: Mr. Avishek Guha, Ld. Counsel
  Mr. Kaustav De Sarkar, Ld. Counsel
  
                            
For the Respondent(s) : None                                                     
    
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the 
records. Despite service, none appears for the respondents.
The instant appeal has been preferred against an order dated 
07.01.2025 passed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Kolkata 
in S.A. No. 66 of 2024 (Resolution Enterprises & Ors. vs. Axis Bank), 
whereby learned Debt Recovery Tribunal passed an interim order of 
status quo in respect of the secured  asset.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, appellants preferred 
the appeal. 

2
As per pleadings of the parties the appellants herein issued a 
notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of 
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 
(hereinafter referred to “the Act”) dated 02.03.2022 against the 
respondents, which was duly served upon them. A representation 
under Section 13(3A) of the Act was duly considered and replied by 
the appellants. Taking abundant precaution notice was also published 
in the English newspaper, namely, “Business Standards” and in a 
Bengali newspaper, namely, “Aajkal”.  In Bengali newspaper, the word 
“pratahar” was written.
One interim application, being I.A. No. 5046 of 2024 was filed 
by the respondents for the relief of quashing of the order dated 
11.12.2024 passed by the learned District Magistrate under Section 14 
of the Act, wherein in para-12 the applicants dealt with the notice 
under Section 13(2) as well as NPA but at no place the ground of 
publication under Section 13(2) notice in Bengali newspaper, where 
the word “pratahar” was written, was taken.  Another ground is taken 
that in the loan recall notice issued by the appellant Bank dated 
01.11.2021, the date of NPA was mentioned as 29.05.2021 but in the 
demand noticer dated 02.03.2022 it was shown as 30.05,2021. So 
there is a clash of dates in the two documents.  Accordingly, I.A. was 
filed.
It appears that the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal taken into 
consideration the two grounds, as referred to above, and passed the 
interim order for maintaining the status quo by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in the 
notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which was duly served upon the 
respondents, the word “pratahar” was nowhere mentioned. Even in the 
English newspaper publication, it was not there. Inadvertently in
Bengali newspaper the word “pratahar” was published, but this issue 
was never raised by the SARFAESI applicants either in the 
representation under Section 13(3A) of the Act nor in the I.A. 5046 of 
2024.

3
Further it is submitted that the date of NPA in the loan recall 
notice has no bearing as the date of NPA in the demand notice under 
Section 13(2) dated 02.03.20122, which have to be taken into 
consideration in accordance with law. 
Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of 
the Hon’ble Apex Court in L & T Housing Finance Limited vs. 
Trishul Developers & Anr.,

…