191090002232025_7d2d7012e8a91c89c34a6542867eeb6a.pdf

Reportable/Non-Reportable
Judgment reserved on:10.12.2025
  Judgment delivered on: 17.12.2025 
                                           
      
  
                 Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata
         IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                                 Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2025
           (Arising out of I.A. 4838 of 2024 in S.A. 1041 of 2024 in DRT-III, Kolkata)
       HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
1.
Axis Bank Limited, carrying out its functions in accordance with the 
Banking Regulations Act, 1949, having its office at 01, Shakespeare
Sarani, A.C. Market Building, 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 071;
2.
The Authorized Officer, Axis Bank Limited, carrying out its statutory 
functions from 01, Shakespeare Sarani, A.C. Market Building, 
3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 071.
                … Appellants
-Versus-
1. 
Raghav Kedia, son of Mr. Sunil Kedia, residing at 15B, Ballygunge Park 
Road, Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700 019;
2.
Sunil Kedia, son of Radheshyam Kedia, residing at 15B, Ballygunge 
Park Road, Ballygunge, Kolkata - 700 019.
        
     
                                  … Respondents
Counsel for Appellants     
 …   
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee
Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly 
Counsel for Respondents          
 …   
JUDGMENT                         
:   
17th December, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: 
1.
Instant appeal has arisen against the order dated 
19.2.2025 
passed 
by 
Learned 
DRT-III, 
Kolkata 
in               
S.A. 1041 of 2025 (Raghav Kedia & Another -vs- Axis Bank) 
whereby Learned DRT restrained the Appellant Bank not to 
take any coercive steps in respect of the secured assets in 
compliance of the order dated 4.11.2024 passed by Learned 
CJM, Alipore under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).  
2.
Feeling 
aggrieved 
by 
the 
impugned 
order, 
Appellant/Secured Creditor preferred the appeal. 

2
      
  Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata
3.
At the very outset, it is observed that this matter was 
listed for hearing on 10.12.2025 wherein in the first-round 
pass over was sought for by the Learned Counsel for 
Respondent which was allowed but in the revised list an 
adjournment was sought for by the Respondent which was 
declined.  It would be appropriate to observe here that this 
matter was heard on 13.8.2025 and the judgment was 
reserved and the following order was passed:
“Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant Mr. Pankaj Kumar 
Mukherjee and Learned Counsel for Respondent, Ms. Ashmita Lohia.  
It is to be observed that Mr. Nimish Mishra appears virtually 
when the hearing has already begun and the Learned Counsel for 
Appellant is arguing the matter. He sought for some time for making
the submission.  He was told that hearing has already begun and he 
may argue the matter by the time hearing is concluded. But despite 
this fact, since he was busy in some other proceedings, a request is
made by Mr. Rajeev Maity, although he is not a Counsel in this matter, 
for granting some time which is declined. Thereafter, Ms. Rituparna 
Sanyal virtually appears and again makes a similar request which has 
already been declined. Her request is also declined since Ms. Ashmita 
Lohia, Learned Counsel for Respondent, has already argued the 
matter.
Judgment reserved.”
4.
Thereafter on mention made by the Learned Counsel 
for Respondent he was allowed to argue the matter vide 
order dated 18.8.2025.  Despite granting opportunity on 
10.12.2025 no submissions are made on behalf of the 
Respondents. Accordingly, it is apparent that only purpose of 
the Respondents is to drag the proceedings; hence request 
for adjournment was declined and the matter was reserved 
for judgment.  
5.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant at 
length and perused the record. 

3
      
  Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata
6.
As per the pleadings, S.A. was filed by the Respondents 
herein challenging the notice und

…