the borrower as well as the auction purchaser. It is submitted that borrower was represented through the learned advocate who was subsequently representing the auction purchaser, which shows the coll… and auction purchaser. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Para 24 of the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Authorised Officer, State Bank of India

1 
 
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA  
 
 Misc. Appl. No. 05 of 2025 
(Arising out of I.A. 3084 of 2023 in S.A. 542 of 2021 in DRT-III Kolkata)  
 
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, 
CHAIRPERSON 
 
02.04.2025 
 
                                                                                         
1. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd 
having registered office at 5 TH FLOOR 55 AND 55/1 J L 
NEHRU ROAD, Chowringhee Court, Kolkata - 700071 
2.THE AUTHORISED OFFICER Cholamandalam Investment 
and Finance Company Ltd residing at DARE HOUSE, 2, 
N.S.C BOSE ROAD, PARRYS, CHENNAI 600001 
... Appellant 
--Vs-- 
1. Mr. LINAJ ADDHYA having office at 4B/11 PACIFIC 
PRESENTLY COMPLEX,  BORAL, Kolkata – 700154.  
2. MRS MITA ADDHYA residing at 4B/11, PACIFIC POINT 
COMPLEX, OPP BORAL HIGH SCHOOL, BORAL. Kolkata 
700154 
2A.MAHAMAYA UTENSILS residing at 44A, KALI TEMPLE 
ROAD, KOLKATA 700026 
3. RAJIB KANTI AICH residing at 259, VIVEKANANDA 
ROAD, VIVEK PALLY, HOOGHLY 712223. 
... Respondents  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For Appellant  
: Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. adv.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Mr. Rajiv Maity, ld. adv.  
 
For Respondent : Mr. Arijit Bardhan, ld. adv. resp. no.1 and 2 
 
 
 
  Ms. Saheli Bose, ld. adv.  
 
 
 
  Mr. Arya Nandi, ld. adv. for auction purchaser.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
 
 
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned 
counsel for the borrower, respondent no. 1 and 2, and learned 
counsel for the auction purchaser, respondent no.3, and perused 
the records.  
 

2 
 
2. 
Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 
06.11.2024 passed by learned DRT-III Kolkata in I.A. 2122 of 
2024 in S.A.  542 of 2021 whereby learned DRT has set aside the 
auction sale dated 17.08.2023 and also the sale certificate dated 
19.08.2023.  Further, learned DRT issued direction for refund of 
the sale consideration amount of Rs.35.90.000/- to the auction 
purchaser with interest @ 8% per annum.  
3. 
At the very outset, it is to be observed that auction 
purchaser has not challenged the impugned order.  
4. 
It appears that sale notice dated 29.07.2023 was issued 
fixing the auction sale date on 17.08.2023 and e-auction sale 
notice was published on 29.07.2023 in The Indian Express. Sale 
was conducted on 17.08.2023, which was also confirmed in 
favour of the auction purchaser, respondent no.3, for sale price of 
Rs.35.90 lakhs and sale certificate was issued on 19.08.2023.  
5. 
Respondent no.1 and 2 herein had filed a securitization 
application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 challenging the 
auction sale on the ground of violation of mandatory provision of 
Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, 
which was duly considered by the learned DRT.  Learned DRT 

3 
 
after placing reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in 
CELIR LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. & 
Ors[(2024) 2 SCC 1] has held that purported auction sale held on 
17.08.2023 appears to be bad in law and accordingly, set aside 
the auction sale and sale certificate with consequential order for 
refund of the sale consideration amount.  
6. 
Learned counsel for the appellant herein submits that there 
is a collusion between the borrower as well as the auction 
purchaser. It is submitted that borrower was represented through 
the learned advocate who was subsequently representing the 
auction purchaser, which shows the collusion between the 
borrower and auction purchaser. Learned counsel has placed 
reliance on Para 24 of the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in 
Authorised Officer, State Bank of India Vs. C. Natarajan & 
Anr. [(2024) 2 SCC 637].  This case law is not applicable in the 
facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel 
could not show any law on factual aspect as regards date of 
auction sale, publication of sale notice, service of the same and 
date of sale are concerned. 

4 
 
7. 
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2, 
bor

…