191090012032025_4ee090c9a879ed3880a44870c36979b9.pdf

Reportable/Non-Reportable
Judgment reserved on:10.12.2025
  Judgment delivered on: 17.12.2025 
                                           
      
  
                 Misc. Appeal No. 87 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata
         IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                                 Misc. Appeal No. 87 of 2025
                (Arising out of S.A. 567 of 2025 in DRT-III, Kolkata)
       HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
Kotak Mahindra Bank, a banking company within the meaning of Section 5(c) 
of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, having its office at 22, Camac Street,
Pantaloon Building, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 016, through its authorized 
officer.
                   
… Appellant
-Versus-
1.
Uttarayan, a public charitable trust, situated at AE 220, Salt Lake 
City, Sector-1, Kolkata – 700 064.
      … Respondent
2.
Dr. Sunipa Sinha Roy, wife of Late Pratit Kumar Roy, residing at 
EC-46, Sector 1, Salt Lake City, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas, 
Kolkata 700 064;
3.
Pradeep 
Agarwal, 
residing 
at 
BE-417, 
Salt 
Lake 
City, 
Kolkata - 700 064.       
     
          
 … Proforma Respondents
Counsel for Appellants     
 …   
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee
Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala
Ms. Khushi Khaitan
Counsel for Respondents          
 … 
Ms. Neelina Chatterjee
Ms. Snigdha Dutta
Counsel for Respondent No.3/
Auction Purchaser 
…
Mr. Shyanti Poddar
Ms. Ranjana Seal  
JUDGMENT                         
:   
17th December, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: 
1.
Instant appeal has arisen against the order dated    
29th July, 2025 passed by the Learned DRT-III, Kolkata in 
S.A. 567 of 2025, (Uttarayan -vs- Kotak Mahindra Bank 
Limited)
2.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused 
the record. 

2
      
  Misc. Appeal No. 87 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata
3.
Impugned order is passed by Learned DRT on I.A. 3096 
of 2025 filed by the Respondents herein for interim relief for 
quashing the notice under Section 13 (8) of the SARFAESI 
Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) read with 
Rules 8 (6) and 9 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) 
Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) and to 
direct the Appellant Bank not to issue Sale Notice and 
maintain the status quo. It so appears that the Learned DRT 
passed an order to implead the auction purchaser in the S.A. 
and thereafter further directed that the e-auction sale dated 
25.7.2025 shall be subject to the outcome of the I.A. 3096 
of 2025 and the Bank was directed not to issue sale 
certificate or register the same without the leave of the 
Tribunal.
4.
Learned Counsel for Applicant Bank made submissions 
in detail on merit of the mater. An I.A. 313 of 2025 is also 
filed by the Appellant Bank for placing on record additional 
evidence. 
5.
As 
far 
as 
the 
impugned 
order 
is 
concerned,               
I.A. 3096 of 2025 is yet to be adjudicated by the Learned 
DRT.  Objections have been filed by the Respondents but 
have not been considered by the Learned DRT.  Even the 
Auction Purchaser has to be impleaded in the pending S.A. 
Further the additional evidence filed by the Appellant Bank 
herein is also to be considered by the Learned DRT. 
6.
At this stage since additional evidence is filed in the 
appeal and I.A. 3096 of 2025 is yet to be adjudicated by the 
Learned DRT, I do not find any reason to enter into the 

3
      
  Misc. Appeal No. 87 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata
merits of the matter rather it would be in the interest of 
justice that the matter should be heard and decided by the 
Learned DRT on its own merit after affording opportunity of 
hearing to the parties, including the Auction Purchaser.  
7.
Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the 
matter, I dispose of the appeal with a direction to the 
Learned DRT to decide the I.A. 3096 of 2025 expeditiously 
after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.  
Needless to mention that Auction Purchaser. 
8.
Parties are directed to appear before the Learne

…