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

Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar C.O. 553 of 2023 Ambhi Impex Private Limited & Ors.

Versus Punjab National Bank & Ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Debasish Karmakar, Adv.

Mr. Parikshit Lakhotia, Adv.

Mr. Satyam Ojha, Adv.

For PNB : Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Parna Roychudhury, Adv.

Ms. Payel Ghosh, Adv.

For the respondent No.3 : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya Mr. Uday Sankar Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Suman Sankar Chatterjee, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 20.03.2025 Judgment on : 19.05.2025 Shampa Sarkar, J.:-

1. The revisional application arises out of a judgment and order dated January 10, 2023, passed by the learned presiding officer (in charge), Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Kolkata in S.A. No. 217 of 2021 and I.A.1605 of 2022. SA 217 of 2021, was an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. By the order impugned, the learned tribunal dismissed S.A. 217 of 2021 along with I.A. No.1605 of 2022 on the ground that those applications were devoid of any merit. Other pending I.As, if any, were also disposed of accordingly. The learned tribunal came to the conclusion that advancement of credit facility to the petitioners by the secured creditor was an admitted fact. The loan had to be repaid in accordance with the terms of the contract. The bank was not only entitled to, but also duty bound to recover the amount, by taking recourse to the provisions of law. The sale was upheld. It was recorded that the sale notice was issued on November 7, 2022. The sale was conducted on November 28, 2022, through e-auction and the secured asset had been sold to one Mr. Ashok Kumar Ghosh, the opposite Party No. 3 in this proceeding, for an amount of Rs.5,53,22,000/- against the reserved price of Rs.3,03,97,000/-.

3. No irregularity had been detected in the entire procedure adopted by the secured creditor. It was held that upon compliance of the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder, the sale had been concluded.

4. The learned tribunal further held that the demand notice dated January 18, 2021, for an amount of Rs.7,97,88,824.96/- was issued after calculating the interest upto November 31, 2022.

5. Mr. Jaydip Kar, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the order impugned was without jurisdiction as the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The application bearing No. I.A. 1605 of 2022 was fixed for hearing on December 15, 2022, upon allowing a put up petition dated December 14, 2022. Accordingly, I.A No. 1605 of 2022 was listed on December 15, 2022. By the said application, the sale notice dated November 7, 2022, had been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds. The sale was scheduled to be held on November 28, 2022. The application was heard upon exchange of affidavits.

6. According to Mr. Kar, the order would reflect that the learned tribunal had heard I.A. 1605 of 2022 and directed the parties to file their written notes of arguments. Arguments were advanced on the validity of the sale notice. While impressing upon the court as to why the sale notice was unsustainable in law, submissions were made on the merits of S.A. 217 of 2022. The notes of arguments and the submissions had substantial reference to the S.A, in order to point out the illegalities on the part of the bank in proceeding against the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act. On the relevant date, the application challenging the sale notice was actually fixed for hearing. Upon conclusion of the arguments of the respective parties, the tribunal directed filing of written notes. The order sheets would clearly reflect that the S.A. was not fixed for