AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since both these appeals have arisen against a common order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned DRT-I Kolkata in S.A. No.143 of 2017 (Harish Chandra Jaiswal Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.), both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
Heard Mr. Mainak Bose, learned senior counsel for the auction purchaser as well as Mr. Debasish Chakraborty, learned counsel for the bank and Mr. Nimesh Mishra, learned counsel for the borrower and perused the records.
Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was issued by the secured creditor bank on 04.04.2017 and Section 13(4) notice was issued on 13.06.2017. SARFAESI application u/s 17 of the Act was filed by the borrower challenging the measures taken by the secured creditor bank. SARFAESI application is pending. In the meantime certain auction sale notices were issued, which could not be fructified and got frustrated. Subsequent thereto, auction sale was conducted by the bank and culminated in favour of the auction purchaser appellant, which was challenged by the borrower by filing I.A. in the pending S.A. While the S.A. was pending, the authorized officer of the bank filed application u/s 14 of the Act before the District Magistrate, Howrah, which could not be decided by the District Magistrate.
F.M.A. No.967 of 2024 with I.A. No. CAN 01 of 2024 was filed by M/s. HDS Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd., appellant herein, before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta which was decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 09.09.2024 wherein Hon'ble High Court directed the District Magistrate, Howrah to dispose of the application filed u/s 14 of the Act and the application filed by the appellant on 28.12.2023 after issuance of notice to all the parties concerned and pass appropriate order on merits in accordance with law. Subsequent thereto District Magistrate, Howrah, dispose of the application filed u/s 14 of the Act on 21.10.2024 and allowed the same.
Order of the District Magistrate was challenged by the borrower by filing I.A. 1422 of 2025 before the learned DRT. Learned DRT passed the impugned order on 27.05.2025 giving opportunity to the auction purchaser as well as bank to file opposition against the I.A. 1422 of 2025 within fifteen days and fixed the matter for disposal of S.A. as well as I.A. and adjudication of the matter was fixed on 25.06.2025. Till then learned DRT restrained the bank from taking over possession of the secured asset on the basis of the order of the District Magistrate.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order bank as well as auction purchaser preferred separate appeals.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant auction purchaser and bank would submit that the S.A. is pending since 2017. Since then there was no interim order till passing of the impugned order. Accordingly, this order impliedly restrained the bank from taking over possession and handing over the same to the auction purchaser after issuance of the sale certificate. Certain other submissions are also made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant auction purchaser on the merits of the matter.
Learned counsel for the borrower also made submissions on the merits of the matter that earlier sale notices were challenged by the borrower. Even present sale notice and sale certificate are also under challenge. Borrower has also challenged the order passed u/s 14 of the Act on different grounds which are yet to be finally considered and disposed of.
As far as the impugned order is concerned it was passed in S.A. which is pending since 2017. At this stage we are not entering into the merit of the matter as S.A. is pending for last about nine years. As per impugned order, opposition to the I.A. 1422 of 2025 is yet to be filed by the bank as well as auction purchaser. Although learned DRT made certain observations in the impugned order, but the objection of the auction purchaser and the bank are yet to be filed on the ground taken by the borrower in the I.A. challenging the order u/s 14 of the Act.
In such circumstances, since I.A. 1422 of 2025 is still pending and is yet to be finally adjudicated, hence, without entering into the merit of the matter, we find it appropriate that direction be issued to the learned DRT to decide the same within a stipulated period of time as the matter is pending for last nine years. Accordingly, without making any observation on the merit of the matter, the matter is remanded back to learned DRT to decide the pending S.A. as well as all the I.A.s preferably within a period five weeks. Matter is already listed before DRT on 10.04.2026. Parties are directed to appear before the learned DRT on 10.04.2026. All the oppositions to the I.A.s as well as S.A. be filed by the parties as per direction of the learned DRT and learned DRT should decide the S.A. along with all the I.A.s within the stipulated period without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned DRT in the impugned order. Time limit for disposal of the matter is fixed keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as the S.A. is pending for the last nine years.
ORDER
Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 2025 and Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 2025 stand disposed of with the observation made in the body of the judgment. Since time limit is fixed for disposal of the S.A. along with all the I.A.s, interim order passed in the impugned order shall remain in force for the aforesaid period. It is made clear that if any adjournment is sought by S.A. applicant without any sufficient ground, learned DRT would be at liberty to vacate the interim order passed in the impugned order in accordance with law. If any adjournment is sought for by the bank or auction purchaser, learned DRT should dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. Costs easy.
Let a copy of the judgment be placed on the record of Misc. Appeal no. 68 of 2025 (AO, Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Harish Chandra Jaiswal).
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the judgement be uploaded in the Tribunal's website.