IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL DIVISION Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi APO 112 of 2023 IA NO: GA 7 of 2022 In CS 390 of 2014 Union Bank of India Vs.

Swadha Builders Private Limited and Others.

And APO 109 of 2023 IA NO: GA 8 of 2022 In CS 390 of 2014 Union Bank of India Vs.

Swadha Builders Private Limited and Others.

For the Appellant : Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ranajit Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Soumabho Ghose, Adv.

Mr. Abhidipto Tarafder, Adv.

Mr. Sudipto Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Purnendu Modak, Adv. Ms. Sampoorna Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Adv.

Nos. 1to 5 Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.

Ms. Rituparna Chatterjee, Adv Ms. Khushboo Choudhury, Adv.

Ms. Ayesha Kedia, Adv.

Mr. Aurin Chakraborty, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : November 4, 2025 Judgement on : December 10, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated March

22, 2023 in IA GA 7 of 2022, IA GA 8 of 2022 in CS 390 of 2014.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had filed CS 390 of 2014 against the respondent Nos. 6 to 11 and the appellant praying for declaration that the deed of equitable mortgage and deed of guarantee executed in favour of the appellant be adjudged null and void and be delivered up and cancelled.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to the sequence of events with regard to the immovable property concerned. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, the immovable property was mortgaged for the purpose of a loan. The respondent No. 8 had defaulted in payment of the loan facility. Appellant had classified the account of the respondent No. 8 as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Appellant had issued a notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) on August 4, 2014 which was followed by a notice dated October 28, 2014 under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, the appellant initiated steps under the Act of 2002 whereupon, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had filed CS 390 of 2014 on November 5, 2014.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the respondent No. 1 made a representation under Section 13(3A) of the Act of 2002 which was considered by the appellant and rejected. Immediately after such rejection, the respondent No. 1 had filed an interim application being GA No. 3838 of 2014 on February 4, 2015 which was dismissed as withdrawn on July 14, 2016, on the Court refusing to pass any order in favour of the respondent No. 1.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, on July 14, 2015, appellant had issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had challenged such notice under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on August 26, 2015.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the respondents had made 11 attempts to frustrate the proceedings under the Act of 2002. He has referred to the instance where, the respondent No. 1 filed 2 writ petitions, 2 proceedings under Section 17 under the Act of 2002, 3 revisional applications, 1 mandamus appeal, 1 criminal revisional application, 1 first appeal and another appeal.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the order dated April 10, 2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, dismissing the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 operates as res judicata. In support of such contention, he has relied upon (2017) SCC Online Mad 30542 (P S Pushparaj Vs. Authorised Officer, Bank of Indore)

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the suit is not maintainable in view o