191090092852017_25ba6a30e4b3f182f77cee953d699e7b.pdf

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                                (App No. 204 of 2017)
             (Arising out of MA./684 of 2017 in DRT-Cuttack)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
18.07.2022
Tangudu Rahul 
… Appellant
              -Vs-
State Bank of India  
 
 
    
…  Respondents
Mr. N. Srinivas, Learned Counsel 
for the Appellant.
Mr. S. K. Sinha, Learned Counsel
for Respondent.
 
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :  
Instant Appeal is preferred against the order dated 
08/09/2017 passed by the Learned DRT, Cuttack in MA 
No.684 of 2017 (arising out of S.A. No.54 of 2015) whereby 
the  Misc.Application filed by the SARFAESI Applicant was 
dismissed.
2.
I have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as 
well as the Respondents No. 1 & 2. Respondents No.3 to 12 
are not present. Record shows that earlier Respondent No.3, 
4 & 5, who were SARFAESI Applicants, appeared through 
Learned Counsel Mr. Avik Sarkar.

2
3.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the 
appellant has purchased one disputed property from the 
borrower. Said property was kept with the Respondents 
No.1 & 2 as a guarantee for loan. Property was released by 
the bank in favour of the borrowers. Thereafter appellant 
purchased the property from the Respondent No.4 whereby 
other properties also mortgaged including the property in 
dispute with the Respondents No.1 & 2 Bank. The loan 
amount was not paid and Bank proceeded against all the 
borrower and co-borrower to enforce the mortgaged 
properties. Subsequently, cost of the property in dispute was 
deposited and this property was released by the bank which 
was subsequently purchased by the appellant from the 
borrower, sale proceed of Rs.35.50 lacs were also deposited 
with the Bank.
4.
S.A. No.54 of 2015 was filed by the Respondents No.3, 
4 & 5 alleging that property in dispute which was purchased 
by the appellant including other properties are the  subject 
matter of the loan which should be released from these 
properties also.
5.
During pendency of the proceedings reply was filed by 
the Appellant to the effect that property in question was 

3
released by the bank after depositing of amount of Rs.35.50 
lacs with the Bank. Thereafter appellant  purchased this 
property, hence this property was already released by the 
Bank and could not be a subject matter of any loan. The 
application was moved by the SARFAESI Applicant alleging 
that all transactions are fraudulent and the appellant should 
appear before the Learned DRT along with letter dated 
21/03/2015.
 It is submitted that fraudulent activity need 
to be cross examined. Learned DRT passed impugned order 
without recording any findings that the appellant should be 
appeared before Learned DRT for examination along with 
letter dated 07/06/2015.
6.
The entire record shows and it is admitted by the Bank 
that disputed property was released by the Bank in favour of 
the Respondent No.4 who sold it to the appellant. It is 
further on record that a Civil Suit No.261 of 2015 was filed 
by the Respondent No.4, Sri Pawan Kr. Sahu against the 
Bank and others which was dismissed for default on 
02/11/2021. As far as impugned order is concerned, 
admittedly the property in question was initially mortgaged 
in favour of the bank, however, bank has released the same 
on deposit of an amount of Rs.35.50 lac in favour of the 

4
Respondent 
No.4, 
Sri 
Pawan 
kr. 
Sahu. 
Thereafter, 
Respondent No.4 sold it to the Appellant.  However, no such 
finding has been recorded by the Learned DRT.
7. 
Hence order could not sustain. Accordingly appeal is 
liable to be allowed.
Order
8.
Accordingly the Appeal, being Appeal No 204 of 2017, 
is allowed and order dated 8/9/2017 passed by the Learned 
DRT, Cuttack, is set aside.
9. 
Learned DRT is directed to proceed with the SARFAESI 
Application in accordance with law.
File be consigned to the record room.
Copy of this order be supplied to the Appellant and 
Re

…