191090004382019_79e15dfb333ad321a1e1af257e8f6ce3.pdf

Appeal No. 115 of  2019-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                               Appeal No. 115 of 2019
            (Arising out of S.A. 56 of 2017  in DRT-III, Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
1.
The   Authorised   Officer,  HDFC  Bank Limited, Kolkata Branch 
Office,   1st Floor,    Gillanders    House,    Netaji  Subhas  Road, 
Kolkata – 700 001;
2.
The Branch  Manager,  HDFC Bank  Limited, carrying on business, 
inter  alia,  from  its  office   at  Kolkata  Branch Office,  1st  Floor, 
Gillanders House, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001.        
            … Appellants
                                  -Versus-
M/s.  Heritage  Retail  India  Private  Limited, represented by its Director 
Sri  Malay  Kumar Mondal,  having its registered office at 130/65, Prince 
Golam Hossain Shah Road, Kolkata – 700 032.
          … Respondent 
Counsel for the Appellant 
 …   
Mr. Rajeev Maity
Counsel for Respondent Bank    …    None
JUDGMENT                         :
20th January, 2023    
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :   
Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 2nd 
December, 2019 passed by Learned DRT-III, Kolkata in SARFAESI
Application  56  of 2017 (M/s.  Heritage  Retail  India  Private  Limited 
-vs- The   Authorised   Officer,  HDFC  Bank Limited) whereby the 
Learned DRT allowed the SARFAESI Application and set aside the
Demand Notice as well as the Possession Notice with liberty to the 
Respondent Bank to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
2.
As per the pleadings of the parties, Respondent, M/s.  Heritage 
Retail India  Private  Limited, is a Private Limited Company and Sri 
Malay Kumar Mondal and Smt. Arpita Mondal are its Directors which 
was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading soft toys. 
On being approached, Cash Credit to the tune of Rs.85.00 lac was 
sanctioned by the Appellant Bank to the Respondent on 26th July, 2011 

2
      
       Appeal No. 115 of  2019-DRAT-Kolkata
which was secured by equitable mortgage of two residential flats and 
corporate guarantee of the Respondent.  
There was default  
in 
payment and re-payment of loan. The loan was classified as N.P.A. 
Appellant proceeded under SARFAESI Act 2002 and issued Demand 
Notice dated 28th April, 2015 claiming Rs.1,11,26,339.84 re-payable 
within sixty days. Possession Notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 
23rd December, 2016.  
3.
Feeling aggrieved, Respondent filed SARFAESI Application.  It is 
contended that the notices are bad in law as provisions of Section 13 
sub section (3) were not complied with.    
4.
Feeling aggrieved, Appellant preferred the present appeal.
5.
I 
have 
heard 
the 
Learned 
Counsel 
for 
the 
Appellant. 
Respondents are served but none is present.   
6.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that the 
Learned DRT has erred in setting aside the Demand Notice as well as
the Possession Notice.  Notices were issued strictly in accordance with
law.  
It is further submitted that all the required details were 
mentioned in the notice and the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the 
SARFAESI Act were duly complied with. Section 13 (2) of the 
SARFAESI Act 2002 provides for issuance of a notice in case the debt 
is classified as ‘Non Performing Asset’. Further the borrower may be 
required to discharge his liabilities in full within sixty days from the 
date of notice. 
Section 13 (3) of the SARFAESI Act reads as under:
“The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of 
the amount  payable by the borrower and  the secured 
assets
intended to be enforced by the secured 
creditor in the event of
non-payment of secured debts by the borrower.”    
7.
Section 13 (3) of the Act specifically shows that it is required 
that the details of the amount payable by the borrower should be 
given in the notice and further the secured assets intended to be 
enforced by secured  creditor in the event 

…