191090005022023_a5ad4942d9c9243d36a27467f0114fa3.pdf

1 
 
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA  
 
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, 
CHAIRPERSON 
 
Appl. No. 99 of 2023 
(Arising out of S.A. 96 of 2023 in DRT-II Kolkata) 
 
 
 
Order No.  
19.02.2025 
 
 
 
 
 
1. INDIAN BANK having registered office at Udrej Bhawan, 
8 G T Road West, Upper Chelidanga, Asansol, Paschim 
Bardman 713304 
2.Authorised Officer, Indian Bank residing at Durgapur City 
Centre Branch, Saroj Mukhopadhya Bhawan, Hare Krishna 
Konar Sarani, City Centre, Post Office, - Durgapur, Dist. 
Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal- 713216 
... Appellant 
--Vs-- 
1. Shri Biplob Santosh Debnath having office at 498 N, 
Ward C 20 D 2/4 Vidyasagar Pally Benachity Durgapur - 
713213 
2.Shri Bittu Debnath residing at S/o. Shri Santosh 
Debnath, 498/N, Ward C/20, D-2/4, Vidyasgar Pally, 
Benachity Durgapur - 713213, 
3.Goutam Ghosh residing at D-35, Vidhyasagar Pally, 
Benachity, Durgapur- 713213 
... Respondents  
 
 
 
 
For Appellant  
: Ms. Anindita Das, ld. adv.   
 
 
 
For Respondent : Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya, ld. adv.  
 
 
 
 
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
 
 
Instant appeal has arisen against the judgement and order 
passed by the learned DRT-II Kolkata on 06.07.2023 in S.A. No. 
06 of 2023 and IA. No. 738 of 2023 (Sri Biplob Santosh Debnath 
&Anr. Vs. Indian Bank &Anr.) whereby S.A. and I.A. were 
allowed.  

2 
 
2. 
As per pleadings of the parties, respondent no.1 and 2 are 
the borrower and guarantor of the appellant bank.  Loan availed 
by the borrower became irregular and was classified as NPA.  
Proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to 
as Act) were initiated by the appellant bank.  Notices were issued 
u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, which was challenged by the 
respondent 1 and 2 with the relief that notice u/s 13(2) and 13(4) 
be quashed and Rule 8(6) notice issued under Security Interest 
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 be also quashed.  
3. 
Pending securitization application a put up application being 
I.A. 738 of 2023 was filed seeking same relief as sought in the 
S.A. and further relief to restrain the secured creditor bank from 
auctioning the secured asset. 
4. 
Opposition to the I.A. was filed by the bank wherein apart 
from the other grounds it was stated in Para 12 that secured 
asset has already been sold by way of e-auction in favour of 
respondent no.3 herein, Mr. Goutam Ghosh, who has deposited 
the sale price in accordance with law and sale certificate was also 
issued in his favour.  

3 
 
5. 
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned DRT 
allowed the I.A. along with S.A. setting aside the sale notice by 
granting consequential relief.  A direction was also issued to 
refund the sale price to the auction purchaser by the secured 
creditor bank.  
6. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
records.  
7. 
At the very outset it is to be observed that learned DRT was 
well within its knowledge that auction sale has been conducted 
and sale certificate has been issued thereby direction was issued 
for refund of sale price. This fact is duly mentioned in reply to the 
I.A. by the bank.  But the auction purchaser was not impleaded in 
the proceeding as respondent in the securitization application 
filed u/s 17 of the Act.  Auction purchaser was a necessary party 
whose right title interest are affected by the impugned 
judgement. It is settled legal proposition that right of hearing 
should be afforded to all necessary parties.  Direction or order 
against a party cannot be passed behind his back.  Admittedly, 
when the auction process was conducted and sale certificate was 
issued in favour of the auction purchaser, he became necessary 

4 
 
party to the proceeding and he should be impleaded in the 
securitization proceeding, which was not done. Hence, impugned 
order cannot be sustained.  Accordingly, matter is liable to be 
remanded back to learned DRT to decide afresh after impleading 
auction purchaser as respondent therea

…