JUDGEMENT

: 5^th October, 2023 Appeal No. 26 of 2020 & Appeal No. 73 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : Both these appeals have arisen against one common judgment and order passed by Learned DRT, Cuttack in SARFAESI Application No. 37 of 2018 (Taraknath Das -vs- Bank of Baroda & Others) on 29th February, 2020 hence both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. A SARFAESI Application, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), was filed by the Respondent No.1 herein, Taraknath Das, challenging the Notices under Sections 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act.

3. As per the pleadings of the parties, Respondent No. 1, Taraknath Das, availed Cash Credit Facility of Rs.6.00 crore, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.8.00 crore, from Bank of Baroda, Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 herein, but the amount was not repaid. Loan account was classified as N.P.A. SARFAESI action was initiated by the Bank. Notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act were issued which were challenged by the Borrower before the Learned DRT, Cuttack by filing SARFAESI Application No. 37 of 2018. 4. E-Auction sale notice of the secured assets consisting of land and building (Cinema Hall – Tanmay Talkies) in the name of Shri Dinesh Chandra Das, situated in Mouza – Pichhili Ghati, Khata No.

153/37, Plot No. 254, Rairangpur, District – Mayurbhanj, Odisha having an area of 66 decimals was issued by the Bank on 5th May, 2018.

5. Appellant herein, i.e. Hindusthan Agencies, participated in the auction and was declared successful bidder who paid the entire consideration and became rightful owner of the property.

6. Successful Auction Purchaser, i.e., Hindusthan Agencies, moved a Misc. Application, being M.A. 977 of 2028 in the SARFAESI Application which was allowed by the Learned DRT and was impleaded as a Respondent in the SARFAESI proceedings.

Appeal No. 26 of 2020 & Appeal No. 73 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata 7. Vide order dated 22nd May, 2018 passed by Learned DRT, Bank was permitted to conduct the auction but not to confirm without the leave of the Tribunal. Further, SARFAESI Applicant was directed to deposit Rs.1.5 crore on or before 21st June, 2018. 8. On 6th July, 2018 M.A. 782 of 2018 was allowed and the SARFAESI Applicant was permitted to deposit Rs.1.5 crore in two instalments, i.e. first instalment of Rs.75.00 lac on or before 12th July, 2018 and second instalment of Rs.75.00 lac on or before 19th July, 2018. Vide order dated 19th July, 2018 time was extended to deposit Rs.1.00 crore by 26th July, 2018 which was further extended till 30th July, 2018. Interim order vacated on 30th July, 2018 for non compliance. Sale Certificate in favour of the Purchaser, Hindusthan Agencies, and the order was issued on 31st July, 2018 and Sale Certificate was issued and on 6th August, 2018 Sale Deed was executed. Auction Purchaser was also impleaded as a party in the SARFAESI proceedings on 8th August, 2018. In the meantime, interim order was issued against the Auction Purchaser not to raise any new construction over the property or not to alienate or create third party interest and to maintain status quo.

9. On 29th December, 2018 an amendment application was moved by the Borrower on the ground that the property had been sold at a gross undervalue which was allowed by the Learned DRT vide order dated 29th December, 2018.

10. Respondent No. 5 in Appeal No. 26 of 2020, i.e. Ashok Kumar Agarwala, was also interested in purchasing the property in question who is having a hall in the name of Shanti Palace in the adjoining plot of land. Initially Ashok Kumar Agarwala wanted to purchase the property upto Rs.5.25 crore. He also participated in the auction and offered upto Rs.3.33 lac but could not increase the bid due to technical fault. Property was sold at Rs.3.35,31,000.00 to M/s. Hindusthan Agencies. Initially Respondent No. 5, Ashok Kumar Agarwala, gave an offer to the Borrower for purchasing th