191090000892025_d363e93113ab426eb613bf0211110b5d.pdf

1
Reportable / not reportable
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA
HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson 
 APPEAL No. 46 of 2025
(Arising out of S.A. 44 of 2023 – DRT-Cuttack)
17.07.2025
                                                                                        
Debendra Nath Das residing at Plot no 1579, Fourth Lane A 
Talabania, Bhaktamadhu Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751130
... Appellant
--Vs--
1. Authorised Officer-cum- Chief Manager, UNION BANK OF 
INDIA having office at Square Branch, Plot no 121 and 122, 
Ground Floor Unit III Kharvela Nagar, Station Square,  
Bhubaneswar 751130
2.SRI RAKESH KUMAR MALLICK residing at PRADHANPUR, 
P.O- BASUDEBPUR, BHADRAK, Odisha 756125. 
                                                                ... Respondents
For Appellant
:  Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Ld. Advocate
  
For Respondent: Ms. Anandita Das, ld. Advocate. 
   
The Appellate Tribunal
Instant appeal is preferred by the appellant against the 
judgement and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned DRT 
Cuttack in S.A. 44 of 2023 (Debendra Nath Das Vs. AO-cum-Chief 
Manager, Union Bank of India & Anr.) whereby learned DRT 
dismissed the securitization application filed by the appellant.     
2.
As per pleadings of the parties, facts of the matter are that a 
securitization application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 
(hereinafter referred to as Act) was filed by the appellant 

2
challenging the E-auction sale notice dated 22.02.2023 conducted 
on 28.03.2023.  The appellant is a guarantor in CC Loan account 
of Rs.90.00 lakh availed by M/s S. R. Retail Zone Pvt. Ltd. from 
the erstwhile Corporation Bank (now merged with Union Bank of 
India) by creating equitable mortgage of dwelling house.  The 
loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA.  Sale 
notice dated 20.02.2023 was issued indicating recovery amount 
of Rs.1,23,11,932.50.  
Possession notice was issued on 
13.07.2012.  Even thereto the property of the borrower was sold 
at Rs.15.00 lakh, property of co-borrower Nalinikanta Pattanaik 
was sold at Rs.30.00 lakh and release the property of another co-
guarantor Sri Sarbeswar Samal (deposited by him) and 29.00 
lakh was deposited by borrower.  Bank has realized Rs.74.00 lakh 
by selling the mortgage property of borrow and to guarantors.  
3.
An O.A. was filed by the bank u/s 19 of the Recovery of 
Debts 
and 
Bankruptcy 
Act, 
1993 
for 
an 
amount 
of 
Rs.57,79,139.50 which was decided by the learned DRT on 
19.02.2021 for a recovery certificate of Rs.34,09,139.50.  The 
judgement and order passed by learned DRT in O.A. 237 of 2013 

3
was before this Appellate Tribunal as Appeal Dy. No.172 of 2022 
wherein pre-deposit was also made.  
4.
Borrower submitted OTS proposal to the bank which was 
approved by the bank on 13.10.2022 for an amount of 
Rs.30,31,388.50 with upfront money of Rs.5.36 lakh, out of 
which  Rs.3.00 lakh was paid by the borrower as upfront money, 
but rest amount was not paid.  OTS was not fructified.  E-auction 
sale notice was issued on 20.02.2023 fixing the auction date on 
28.03.2023 for a reserve price of Rs.86.95 lakhs.  Sale notice was 
issued showing recovery amount of Rs.1,23,11,932.50.
5.
It is contended by the learned counsel for appellant that sale 
notice dated 20.02.2023 is illegal.  It is stated that outstanding 
amount in the loan account as determined in the O.A. proceeding 
by the DRT was Rs.34,09,139.50 only.  OTS proposal was duly 
approved, but cancelled for some oblique reasons.  
Learned 
counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the sale notice 
dated 20.02.2023 with consequential reliefs.        
6.
Reply was filed by the bank stating that O.A. 237 of 2013 
was 
filed 
by 
the 
bank 
wherein 
recovery 
certificate 
for 
Rs.34,09,139.50 was issued on 19.02.2021 for realization.  

4
Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order passed in O.A. 
proceeding, borrower filed an appeal before this Appellate 
Tribunal.  OTS proposal was mad

…