the bank and the borrowers to settle the OTS in view of the Scheme of the Bank and the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. But the Tribunal cannot issue any direction to the bank to accept the OTS or to revi…

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA                
 
           In-Charge Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad                          
                                     (Appeal No. 154 of 2018)                                          
 
 
 
 
    
THE HON’BLE SHRI R. S. KULHARI 
             CHAIRPERSON 
 
10.10.2019 
 
1. State 
Bank 
of 
India, 
a 
body 
corporate 
constituted 
under 
the 
State Bank of India Act, 1955 
having its registered office at 1, 
Strand Road, Samriddhi Bhavan, 
Kolkata-700001 and branch office at 
Raiganj 
District 
Uttar 
Dinajpur, 
Pin733130 
2. The Authorized Officer, State Bank 
of 
India, 
having 
his 
office 
at 
Raiganj, District-Uttar Dinajpur, Pin-
733130 
 
 
 
            …Appellants. 
                  -Versus-  
 
 
1. 
Joy 
Guru 
Rice 
& 
Oil 
Miss, 
a 
partnership firm having its place of 
business at Post Nayabazar, P.S. 
Tapan,  District Dakshin Dinajpur, 
West Bengal, Pin-733124. 
2.  Baladeb Saha, son of late Prafulla 
KumarSaha, partner of M/s. Joy 
Guru Rice & Oil Miss. 

2 
 
3. Kanai Saha, son of Late Prafulla 
Kumar Saha,  
 
2 & 3 at Durgabaripara, P.S. 
Gangarampur, 
District-Dakshin 
Dinajpur,  West Bengal, Pin-
733124. 
 
 
 
       
3. M/s. Vigneswar Rice Mill P.  Ltd., 
having its office at Village Dakhline, 
P.O. 
Nayabazar, 
District-Dakshin 
Dinajpur, Pin-733124.  
 
 
  .Proforma Respondent. 
Ms. Aparajita Rao, Ld. Counsel for 
the Appellant. 
Mr. Prabhat Sil, Ld. Counsel for the 
Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
This appeal has been preferred under 
Section  18 of the SARFAESI Act against the order dated 20.07.2018 passed 
by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-Siliguri whereby the S.A. filed by the 
Respondents/Borrowers was allowed and the proceedings conducted by the 
Bank were set aside. 
 
2. 
The essential facts of the matter in brief, are that the Appellant-Bank 
granted some credit facilities to the Respondent No. 1  through its partners.  
The loan was secured by equitable mortgage of the property belonging to the 
firm and the partners.  The borrowers/guarantors committed default in 
repayment of loan, hence the bank issued demand notice dated 13.09.2011 
under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act followed by possession notice 
dated 29.11.2013 under Section 13(4) of the said Act and the actual 
possession of the property was taken. 

3 
 
3. 
The Respondents challenged the proceedings of the bank by filing S.A. 
No. 24 of 2014 before DRT-Kolkata which was later on transferred to DRT-
Siliguri and registered as TSA/04/2017. It appears that in the meantime the 
Bank issued sale notice fixing auction of the property,  but the same could 
not be materialized. However,  subsequent sale notice dated 18.02.2017 was 
issued and the property was auctioned on 24.03.2017 and sale certificate 
was issued on 29.03.2017 in favour of the auction purchaser Respondent No. 
4 in this appeal. 
 
4. 
The Tribunal below vide impugned order allowed the S.A. observing 
that the valuation of the property has not been properly done and fifteen 
days’  notice before sale has not been given.  While setting aside the sale the 
DRT directed the Appellant to revive the OTS and to hand over possession of 
the secured assets to the Respondent/Borrowers and also to refund the 
money to the auction purchaser. Being aggrieved by the said order the Bank 
has preferred this appeal. 
 
5. 
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the property was properly 
valued and reduction in value was due to changed circumstances. The sale 
notice dated 18.02.2017 was sought to be served to the borrowers by hand 
but they had refused to accept the same, hence it was sent by post.  
Although fifteen days’ were not available after receipt of the sale notice,  but 
the respondents were having knowledge of the sale from 18.02.2017,  
therefore, sufficient compliance has been made. 
 
 
6. 
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant next contended that the Tribunal below 
had not 

…