191090001152019_58ba7f0ba683d8d45552b63bed1a8d29.pdf

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA  
           In-Charge Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad                         
                              
Appeal No. 42 of 2019 
(Arising out of S.A. No.1 of 2018 of DRT, Cuttack) 
 
THE HON’BLE SHRI R S KULHARI 
CHAIRPERSON 
 
The Authorized Officer 
State Bank of India 
Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (SARB) 
Link Road, Madhupatana 
Cuttack-753010 
 
                
 
 
     …  Appellant          
 
 
     
-versus- 
 
1. Deba Dash 
Proprietor of M/s Jagannath Cashew  
Processing Unit, Ashok Nagar 
P.O. & P.S. Athgarh 
Dist.Cuttack, Odisha. 
 
2. Ashok Kumar Dash 
Son of Late Radha Krushna Dash 
Of Block Colony, Athgarh 
P.O. & P.S. Athgarh 
Dist.Cuttack, Odisha. 
 
 
          …  Respondents 
 
                             
3. Banoj Kumar Dash 
Son of Late Radhamohan Dash 
Of Block Colony, Athgarh 
P.O. & P.S. Athgarh 
Dist.Cuttack, Odisha. 
 
…  Proforma Respondent 
 
 
Mr.A.K. Dhandhania, Senior Advocate      
along with Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti 
Advocate for the Appellant  
 
Mr. R.N. Das,  
Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 
 
Ms. Mekhala Kanji,  
Advocate for the Respondent No.3 
 

2 
 
 
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :  JUDGEMENT : Dt.15.11.2019 
 
1. This Appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 
02.04.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Cuttack whereby 
the S.A. No.1 of 2018 filed by the Respondent was allowed 
quashing  all the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) and sale 
notice dated 18.04.2017 and sale certificate dated 12.06.2017 with 
certain directions to appellant bank and respondents. 
 
2. The essential facts leading to this appeal are; that the  respondent 
No.1 availed credit facility from the appellant bank and respondent 
No.2 is the guarantor/mortgagor in the loan transaction. As the 
respondents failed to operate the account as per agreed terms, 
appellant classified the loan account as N.P.A. and initiated 
SARFAESI proceedings by issuing demand notice under Sec.13(2) 
followed by possession notice under Sec.13(2) of the SARFAESI 
Act. The bank took symbolic possession of the secured assets on 
04.07.2016.The appellant bank sold the mortgaged property at 
Rs.29,04,000/- on 19.05.2017 pursuant to sale notice dated 
18.04.2017 and confirmed the sale and issued sale certificate on 
12.06.2017 in favour of successful bidder i.e., respondent No.3.  
The appellant bank delivered physical possession of the property to 
respondent No.3 on 20.12.2017 by obtaining orders from District 
Magistrate, 
Cuttack 
under 
Sec.14 
of 
the 
SARFAESI 
Act. 
Subsequently the sale deed was registered on 22.12.2017.  
 
3. It is averred that after creating mortgage in favour of appellant 
bank, the respondent No.2 allegedly entered into agreement of sale 
on 28.06.2012 with one Samarendra Nanda who filed civil suit 
No.244/2016 for specific performance. The civil court passed status 
quo order however, the same was set aside in FAO No.1 of 2007 
filed by the appellant bank. Aggrieved by the order, said 
Samarendra Nanda filed CMP No.586 of 2017 in which Hon’ble High 
Court of Orissa passed interim order to maintain status quo. On 
having knowledge about the orders passed in CMP, the appellant 
bank filed affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court disclosing the fact 
of auction sale, confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate. 

3 
 
Hon’ble High Court dismissed the CMP No.586 of 2017 on 
01.11.2017.  
 
4. Thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 filed S.A. No.1 of 2018 on 
30.12.2017 before the Tribunal below seeking to quash the sale 
proceedings and sale certificate dated 12.06.2017. The said S.A. 
was allowed quashing all the SARFAESI proceedings right from 
notice issued under Sec.13(2) of the Act. Hence, this appeal. 
 
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent-
guarantor challenged the sale and the sale certificate dated 
12.06.2017 whereas the Tribunal below has set aside not only the 
sale but the demand not

…