Arpita Debnath and Anr. vs UCO Bank and Ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2775

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shantanu Sinha, Mr. P. Saha
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Pal Choudhuri, Ms. Shilpi Paul

Table of Content
1. delay in filing appeal condoned due to sufficient grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. auction purchaser deemed necessary party. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. tenant rights contested in relation to auction sale. (Para 13 , 15 , 16)
4. independent nature of proceedings under sarfaesi clarified. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. no costs awarded in the disposal of the appeal. (Para 21 , 22)

1. The application being CAN 1 of 2022 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 153 days in filing the appeal.

2. Sufficient grounds have been made out in the instant application explaining such delay. Hence, the delay is condoned.

3. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2022 is allowed.

Re.: CAN 2 of 2022

4. The application being CAN 2 of 2022 is an application for impleading the auction purchaser of the property from the bank namely Pradip Bhakat.

5. Since the auction purchaser’s interest i.e. Pradip Bhakat, is vitally interlinked to this proceeding, he is a necessary party to this appeal.

6. Let Pradip Bhakat be impleaded as a party respondent to the instant proceeding.

7. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2022 is allowed.

Re.: CAN 4 of 2023

8. The application being CAN 4 of 2023 is an application for substitution of Reshmi B