IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CO 1779 OF 2014 GAJANAN HIGHRISE PRIVATE LIMITED VS UCO BANK & ORS For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratyush Patwari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/Bank : Mr. Soumen Das, Adv.

Mr. Sourjya Roy, Adv.

Last heard on : 06.11.2025 Judgement on : 09.12.2025 Uploaded on : 09.12.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This revisional application is filed challenging an order and judgment dated 7^th May, 2014 passed by the Learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta whereby the appeal No. 75 of 2012 presented by the petitioner under Section 28 of SARFAESI Act 2002 has been dismissed.

2. Brief Fact of the case of the petitioner

2.1. Opposite Party No 3 Bank issued the possession cum sale notice by inviting tender dated 30.12.2009.

2.2.The petitioner submitted his bid of Rs. 70,00,000/-and deposited the Earnest Money of Rs. 6,30,000/-to pay via pay order (HDFC ---UCO Bank )

2.3. Petitioner declared successful bidder for 56.97 cottah of land with building shed at situated at village Mirhati. P.S Amdamga, District- 24 Parganas (North).

2.4. Petitioner deposited a total amount of RS 17,50,000/- being the 25% of the total Bid and(including) the earnest Money of Rs. 6,30,000/- as per terms and paid the remaining amount of Rs. 11,20,000/- via pay order.

2.5. After waiting for sale confirmation, petitioner approached bank in April 2010 2.7 As advised by OPNO 3 petitioner paid Rs. 52, 50,000/- on 7.4.2010 by a cheque no 405785 dated 7.4.2010 towards the balance bid amount for purchasing the property.

2.6. On 13.4.2010, Opposite Party No 1 acknowledged the receipt but refused to confirm the sale.

2.7. The Bank disclosed for and first time informed that a pending proceeding before the DRT which directly affected the right of the petitioner.

2.8. The petitioner discovered O.P. No. 4 to 7 had filed OA/SARFAESI Act/7/2010.

2.9. On 09.02.2010 DRT had ordered:

a) Opposite Party No. 4 to 7 to deposit at least a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs by 11 A.M. on 15.02.2010 to the Bank .

b) If defaulted the Bank could proceed with Sale but could not confirm the sale without further orders.

2.10. Bank informed the petitioner that Opposite party no 4-

7 failed to deposit Rs 8 lakh therefore the Bank proceeded with Sale

2.11. The petitioner filed an application;

a) For impleadment (addition as party)

b) For confirmation of sale in his favour c) For a direction upon the bank to hand over the possession of the said property to the petitioner.

2.12. On 11^th May, 2010 the Counsel for OP No. 4& 7 offered Rs. 10 lakhs Learned Tribunal .

2.13. The Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 refused to receive the said cheque with the reason that the property had been sold to the petitioner.

2.14. On 18th May, 2010 the Opposite Party No. 4 to 7 admitted non-payment of the amount of Rs. 8 lakh in terms of the order dated 9^th February, 2010.

2.15 The matter was fixed repeatedly but no final order was passed.

2.16 A writ petition was filed being W.P. No. 1297 of 2010 before this Court for an expeditious disposal which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum.

2.17 On 6.10.2010 DRT passed the order of status quo extended on 11.11.2010 continued till 7.9.2011.

2.18 On 2.11.2011, the opposite Party No. 4 to 7 W.P. No. 13912 (W) of 2007 decided by a co-ordinate bench of this Court where the present petitioner was not a party .

2.19 The petitioner filed an appeal being MAT No. 1705 of

2011.

2.20 On 22.11.2011 the Division Bench held the previous order of the Single Bench did not effect the rights of the writ petitioner therein nor it causes any prejudice to the petitioners.

2.21 On 21st December, 2011 the Opposite Party No. 4 to 7 sought withdrawal of SARFAESI proceeding due to settlement. 2.22 The petitioner sought for continuation of the order of status quo till disposal of the said proceeding.

2.23 On refusal he filed an appeal before the Learned Appellate Tribunal (DRAT and the same was