191090003062023_dcc0adc7bfaca22a4d52e6da7e3e499c.pdf

Reportable/Non-Reportable
                                           
      
  
     Appeal No. 42 of   2024-DRAT-Kolkata
         IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                                 Appeal No. 42 of 2024
            (Arising out of S.A. 211 of 2021  in DRT-I, Kolkata)
     HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
   
M/s. A.S. Ceramic Grinder, Village – Naksha, G.T. Road (Near Kunti Cold 
Storage), Police Statrion Mogra, District: Hooghly,  PIN – 712 148. 
                
         … Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Authorised Offifcer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery 
Branch, Burdwan Ullhas Gate No. 1, P.O. Jotaram, District: Burdwan, 
West Bengal, P.I.N. - 713 104;
2. State  Bank  of  India,  Stressed  Assets  Recovery Branch, Burdwan 
Ullhas  Gate  No. 1,  P.O.  Jotaram,  District:  Burdwan,  West Bengal, 
P.I.N. - 713 104.
                       …  Respondents
Counsel for Appellants     
 …   
Mr. Samik Basu
Mr. Kausik Das
Counsel for Respondents          
 …   
Mr. Debashis Saha
Ms. Rajashri Bhattacharya
Ms. Sucheta Pal
JUDGMENT                         
:   
17th March, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
1.
Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 
3rd April, 2023, passed by Learned DRT-I, Kolkata, dismissing 
S.A. 211 of 2021 (M/s. A.S. Ceramic Grinder -vs-  State Bank of 
India). 
2.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the 
record.   
3.
It appears that the Securitisation Application was filed by the 
Appellants, who are SARFAESI Applicants before the Learned DRT, 
challenging the order of the District Magistrate dated 8.2.2021. 
Certain facts are borne out from the record that the Appellants are the 
Borrowers of the Respondent Bank, who availed loan facility. Account 
became irregular and was classified as N.P.A.  Notices under Section 

2
      
  Appeal No. 42 of   2024-DRAT-Kolkata
13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the 
‘Act’) were issued following the procedural requirement under the Act. 
As per the Respondent Bank notices were duly served. Thereafter, 
order was obtained from the District Magistrate under Section 14 of 
the Act.   
4.
The Appellants herein challenged the action of the Bank by filing 
a Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the Act which was 
contested by the Bank. However, pending S.A. secured assets were
put to sale. Auction was conducted on 28th December, 2021 wherein 
the Auction Purchaser deposited the required amount as per law.  Sale 
Certificate was issued on 25th January, 2022.  This fact was brought on 
record by the Bank but the Auction Purchaser was not impleaded as 
Respondent in the S.A. proceedings.
5.
Learned DRT dismissed the S.A. by passing the impugned
judgment and order.
6.
It is the settled legal proposition that party to the lis should be 
given an opportunity of hearing.  It appears that when sale certificate 
was issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser, he became necessary 
party and should have been impleaded as necessary party in the 
Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the Act. But was not 
impleaded and a judgment was passed against the Appellants. Since 
Auction Purchaser was a necessary party an opportunity of hearing 
should have been granted to him. 
7.
On the above ground alone, I am of the considered view that the 
impugned judgment and order needs to be remanded to Learned DRT 
for impleading the Auction Purchaser as opposite party in the petition 
under Section 17 of the Act.
8.
Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed.   
   O R D E R E D
Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 3rd April,
2023, passed by Learned DRT-I, Kolkata, dismissing  S.A. 211 of 2021 
(M/s. A.S. Ceramic Grinder -vs- State Bank of India) is set aside. 

3
      
  Appeal No. 42 of   2024-DRAT-Kolkata
Appellant herein is directed to implead the Auction Purchaser as 
opposite party in the application under Section 17 o

…