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

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 1354 of 2025 Prosenjit Sen Vs.

State Bank of India & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bijoy Adhikary Mr. Supriyo Ghosh Ms. Susmita Adhikary Ms. Ashis Bhukta ….. advocates For the Opposite Party : Mr. Debasish Saha Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal Ms. Sucheta Pal …advocates Reserved on : 14.05.2025 Judgment on : 25.06.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the borrower and is directed against an order being No. 03 dated November 22, 2024 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III (for short “DRT”) in I.A. No. 3743 of 2024 arising out of S.A. No. 366 of 2024.

2. By the order impugned, DRT disposed of the I.A. No. 3743 of 2024 upon holding that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”).

3. State Bank of India (for short “SBI”) sanctioned a Term Loan facility in favour of the petitioner for purchasing a flat. The authorised Officer, SBI, issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 08.12.2023 calling upon the petitioner to discharge in full the outstanding liabilities due and owing to the Bank of Rs. 4,96,881/- within the time limit indicated therein and in case of failure to repay the said amount, the Bank will exercise all or any of the rights under Section 13(4) of the said Act. Bank affixed a Possession Notice dated 26.02.2024. Possession Notice was published in two leading newspapers on 27.02.2024. Challenging the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, dated 08.12.2023, the possession notice dated 26.02.2024 and the publication of the possession notice on 27.02.2024, petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act which is registered as S.A. 366 of 2024. District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South), passed an order dated August 2, 2024 in a proceeding under Section 14 of the Act, whereby the Authorised Officer was authorised to take possession of the secured asset. Petitioner challenged the order of the District Magistrate dated 02.08.2024 by filing an application being IA 3743 of 2024 and prayed for stay of operation of the order dated

02.08.2024. Prayer for stay stood rejected by the impugned order.

4. Being aggrieved, the borrower has approached this Court.

5. Mr. Adhikari, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that SBI sanctioned a term loan facility of Rs. 10,71,000/- for purchasing a flat and the petitioner was required to repay the principal amount together with interest by way of Equated Monthly Instalments (for short “EMI”) of Rs. 11,673/. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon several documents annexed to this civil revision application. He contended that the petitioner never defaulted in paying EMI as per the agreement. He contended that the demand made in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is an imaginary one and the same is in utter violation of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Mr. Adhikary further contended that though the SBI sanctioned a term loan facility of Rs. 10,71,000/- but the notice under Section 13(2) was issued by treating the amount of loan sanctioned to be of Rs. 10,99,000/-. He, thus, contended that the Bank practiced fraud upon the petitioner and, therefore, this Court should entertain the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of such contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered on January 09, 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1876 of 2016 in the case of Central Bank of India vs. Prabha Jain reported at LAWS (SC) 2025-1-111

6. Mr. Saha, learned advocate for the Bank raised an objection as to the maint