Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri Munish Malhotra alongwith Shri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Siddharth appears for first respondent. Shri Manoj Kumar Singh appears for second respondent.

2. M/s Koelee Sportswear Inc. through its proprietor Sri Kamal Kant Jain is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.1.2015 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (DRAT) in Appeal Sr. No. 112/2014 (M/s Koelee Sportswear Inc. v. Canara Bank and another).

3. The petitioner, who is a borrower, has filed an S.A. before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (DRT) challenging the action initiated by the bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) leading to the sale of the property by way of auction. The DRT had dismissed the S.A. on the ground that earlier the petitioner had approached to the Division Bench of this Court and the sale by auction of the property has been held pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court and as such there was no occasion for entertaining the said S.A. and the DRT had refused to interfere in the said proceedings. The same has impelled the petitioner to approach to the DRAT but the DRAT has also rejected the claim set up by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.1.2015.

4. The factual matrix of the case, which has emerged from the record, is that the petitioner is the proprietor of the firm namely M/s Koelee Sportswear Inc. The firm is situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ), which is dealing in manufacturing and export of garments. It is thus claimed that the petitioner was entitled to duty free import and export of the products manufactured by the petitioner and has been exporting to garment industry. It is claimed that the firm was also entitled to various exemptions like customs, excise duties, CST, Local Sales Tax and Income Tax etc.

5. The petitioner was granted financial assistance from the first respondent in the year 2006 against which he had mortgaged his property bearing No. 167 NSEZ, Noida and Plot No. 129-G/64, NSEZ, Noida in US $ by offshore banking unit. It is also claimed that the petitioner has made reference to some Libor rate which was varying from 0.34-0.51 etc. In the present matter the account of the petitioner was classified as NPA on 26.11.2010. On the very next day i.e. on 27.11.2010 the bank had issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act demanding an amount of US $ 2,52,425.07 at the notional rate Rs. 1,13,59,128/-. In response to the said notice the petitioner had filed detailed objection under Section 13 (3) (a) of the SARFAESI Act. The same was responded by the bank on 10.2.2011. The grievance of the petitioner was that at no point of time his objections were dealt strictly as per the provisions contained under the SARFAESI Act. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner informed to the bank on 19.2.2011 that whatever the response has been furnished by the bank, the same was vague and evasive. The same was also responded by the bank on 7.3.2011.

6. It appears from the record that there was active deliberation between the parties for settlement and in this regard the petitioner had submitted proposal for settlement on 31.7.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner had agreed for sale of his property bearing Plot No. 129-G/64, NSEZ, Noida. It is contended that the said offer was extended to the bank as this was sufficient to liquidate the outstanding dues. Finally the said property was sold by the bank for a sum of Rs. 1,00,10,000/-. After the sale of the said property, the petitioner approached to the bank to release the title document of the second property but instead of returning the same the bank had proceeded to issue another notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act on 12.11.2013 against the second property i.e. Plot No. 167, NSEZ, Noida. The said action has been subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 69007 of 2013