Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

The subject matter of challenge in the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the judgment dated 7th February, 2015 passed by the learned Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal) in Appeal No.16 of 2012 and Appeal No.30 of 2012.

Mr. Mantha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein along with her husband applied for a house building loan from the United Bank of India, Salt lake branch (hereinafter referred to as the said bank) and the said bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.22 lacs and upon availing the loan amount they purchased half portion of the premises no.8-A, Duff Lane, P.S. Burtolla, Calcutta – 700 006 (hereinafter referred to as the said property) and the registered deed of conveyance pertaining to the property purchased was kept in the custody of the bank as collateral lien. Out of the said loan amount, an amount of Rs.8 lacs was paid but thereafter no further payment could be made and accordingly a notice under Section 13(2) of the of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to the said Act) was issued and thereafter on 12th August, 2009 a possession notice was sent under Section 13(4) of the said Act. Challenging the notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act, the petitioner and her husband preferred an application under Section 17(1) of the said Act and the same was registered as SA No.14 of 2009 before the Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (hereinafter referred to as DRT) and in the said application initially an interim order was passed on 22nd September, 2009 directing the said bank to maintain status quo in respect of the subject matter with a further direction upon the applicants therein to pay an amount of Rs.3 lacs to the said bank on or before the next date of hearing. The said amount could not be paid by the applicants and during pendency of the proceedings, the said bank published a second notice of sale fixing the date of sale on 7th July, 2010 but no such notice was served upon the applicants and thereafter the bank sold the property and the sale certificate was issued on 6th January, 2011.

Mr. Mantha further submits that the petitioner was thereafter forcibly dispossessed on 21st January, 2011 and such fact was brought on record by applications dated 28th January, 2011 and 6th April, 2011 but without considering the same the learned tribunal dismissed the application under Section 17 of the said Act by an order dated 21st December, 2011. In the said order, the learned tribunal was, however, pleased to observe that no demand was made regarding the actual rate of interest which was required to be paid from 1st April, 2008 and it was also not stated that any demand was made towards future interests, expenses and costs and in the backdrop of such infirmities the bank was directed to refund an amount of Rs.13,17,854/- to the applicants.

Aggrieved by the said order dated 21st December, 2011 an Appeal Case No.16 of 2012 was preferred by the applicants and an Appeal Case No.30 of 2012 was preferred by the said bank. Both the said appeals were considered and by the judgment impugned dated 7th February, 2014, the learned tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the bank and the applicants’ appeal was dismissed.

The primary contention of Mr. Mantha is that the learned tribunal has proceeded in a mechanical manner and though the entire sale procedure was under challenge, the applicants’ prayer was turned down on a purported ground of insufficient pleading.

Drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 23 of the learned tribunal’s judgment, Mr. Mantha submits that in spite of a categoric observation that the DRT, having found the valuation to be inappropriate, could have taken steps to set aside the entire proceedings instead of directing refun