191090005522023_3414e5f111e65c6d15b4e18993d7f309.pdf

1 
 
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - 
KOLKATA 
MISC APPEAL/15/2023 
(Arising out of SA 81/2022 KOLKATA DRT 1 ) 
HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson 
Date:29/01/2024
                                                                                         
1. J.C FLOWERS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED having 
registered office at 12TH FLOOR CROMPTON GREAVES HOUSE DR ANNIE 
BESANT ROAD WORLI MUMBAI 400030 MAHARASHTRA AND CAMPAIGNING 
AT GUHA 
... Appellant
--Vs-- 
1. RAMESH KUMAR DHANUKA having office at 68/1 ASUTOSH MUKHARJEE 
LANE POLICE STATION GOLABARI HOWRAH 711106 
... Respondent
For the appellants :
Mr. Avishek Guha , ld. Adv. 
For the respondents: 
Mr. Debasish Karmakar, ld. Adv. 
Ms. Shreyash Mohta, ld. Adv.   
 
J U D G E M E N T 
 
 
Instant 
appeal 
has 
arisen 
against 
the 
order 
dated 
02.08.2023 passed by learned DRT-1. Kolkata in I.A. no.  570 of 
2023 arising out of S.A. 81 of 2022 (Ramesh Kumar Dhanuka Vs. 
J. C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.). 
2. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
records.  
3. 
It 
appears 
that 
S.A. 
was 
filedby 
the 
respondent 
hereinchallenging the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by learned 
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 

2 
 
2002.  S.A. was filed before the learned DRT-1, Kolkata by the 
borrower wherein impugned order dated 02.08.2023 was passed 
in I.A. 570 of 2023 arising out of the S.A. 
4. 
At the very outset a perusal of the impugned order would 
depict that the matter was listed on 22.08.2023 for hearing of the 
S.A.  A put-up application was filed by the respondent borrower 
which was taken up on 02.08.2023.  Put up application was 
served by the borrower on a generic email ID of the ARC. ARC 
was represented through their learned advocate before the DRT 
in the S.A. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 
appellant that notices for put-up application which were served 
through email account be held to be bad in law. Learned counsel 
for the respondent submits that notices sent through email 
address can be considered as sufficient service. Service of notice 
through e-mail is a valid service.  
5. 
As far as impugned order is concerned the action taken by 
the learned CJM, Howrah u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act was set 
aside by the learned DRT merely on the ground that matter was 
proceeded expartewitha finding recorded that learned CJM, 
Howrah passed the order without complying Section 13(4) notice 
and Rule 8(1) of the Security Enforcement (Procedure) Rules.  
Accordingly, the order passed by learned CJM, Howrah was set 
aside by the learned DRT.  
6. 
Hon’ble Apex Court in R.D. Jain& Co. Vs. Capital First 
Ltd. &Ors. [(2023) 1 CC 675] decided on 27.07.2022 andin 

3 
 
Balkrishna Rama Tarle Vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. 
[(2023) 1 SCC 662] decided on 26.09.2022 has settled the 
lawregarding obligation on the part of DM/CMM to dispose of the 
Section 14 application within specified time period after recording 
his satisfaction on the nine points provided in Section 14 of the 
Act. 
7. 
Learned counsel for respondent submits that there is a 
patent illegality committed by the appellant ARC to the effect that 
order of learned CJM, Howrah was passed on 19.10.2022 while 
Section 13(4) notice was published on 16.12.2022.  Learned 
counsel submits that order of the CJM, Howrah is bad in law.  
8. 
As far as provision of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is 
concerned it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.D.Jain case 
(supra) that CMM/DM is required to ensure compliance of nine 
points as provided in Section 14 of the Act and to record his 
satisfaction about compliance of those nine points. Learned DRT 
has recorded in its finding that the order of the learned CJM, 
Howrah is bad in law.  As far as satisfaction about nine points is 
concerned no finding is recorded. In such circumstances, the 
issues having been raised by the learned counsel for the 
respondentthat Section 13(4

…