Reportable/Non-Reportable IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA (Arising out of S.A. 101 of 2021 in DRT-II, Kolkata)

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

1. Diamond Hospital Private Limited, a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Ukhra Road, P.O. and P.S. Andal, District - Paschim Bardhaman, P.I.N. - 713 321;

2. Tapan Kumar Ray, son of Late Sudhakar Ray, residing at Khudiram Pally, P.O. and P.S. Andal, District - Paschim Bardhaman;

3. Sankar Prasad Ray, son of Late Sudhakar Ray, residing at Khudiram Pally, P.O. and P.S. Andal, District - Paschim Bardhaman;

4. Utpal Kumar Ray, son of Late Sudhakar Ray, residing at 46, CIT Road, SCHEME-52, Anandapalit More, Kolkata -700 014.

… Appellants -Versus-

1. LIC Housing Finance Limited, company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Bombay Life Building, 2^nd Floor, 45/47, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai, Mumbai – 400 001 and Eastern Regional Office at Hindusthan Building (Ground Floor), 4, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata -700 072;

2. The Authorised Officer, LIC Housing Finance Limited, working for gain at Hindusthan Building (Ground Floor), 4, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata - 700 072.

… Respondents Counsel for Appellants … Dr. Birendra Pathak Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2/F.I. … Mr. Prasenjit Pal Mr. Arunabha Sarkar Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Rai Mr. D. Das Mr. Priyanshu Kothari JUDGMENT : 6th March, 2025 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

1. Instant appeal has been preferred against order and judgment dated 26.5.2023 passed by Learned DRT-II, Kolkata in S.A. 101 of 2021 (Diamond Hospital Private Limited & Others -vs- LIC Housing Finance Limited & Others) whereby the S.A. was dismissed.

2. As per the pleadings of the parties, Appellants, who are the SARFAESI Applicants before the Learned DRT, are the Borrowers and Guarantors of the secured assets who availed House Entity Loan of Rs.9.10 crore vide Sanction Letter dated 22.03.2016 on floating rate of 12.50% repayable in 120 months on EMI of Rs.13,32,026.00. Account was classified as N.P.A. on 1.12.2019. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 08.10.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) followed by Notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act dated 19.12.2020 were issued by the Secured Creditor. No formal representation under Section 13 (3A) of the Act was made but request letters of settlement was made on 9.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 which were refused by the Respondents on 17.12.2020. Hence, Appellants preferred the Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. Pending Securitization Application, I.A. 1250 of 2021 was filed challenging the District Magistrate order dated 5.8.2021 passed under Section 14 of the Act which too was rejected by the Learned DRT.

4. Feeling aggrieved, appeal is filed by the Appellants.

5. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned Counsel for Appellants basically filed the appeal on the ground that notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was not properly served. Records were not maintained by the Respondents and right to redemption is not properly given.

7. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent would submit that Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued in accordance with law and was duly served. Details of the secured assets were mentioned in all the notices. The account was classified as N.P.A. in accordance with the Act as well as the RBI guidelines. No representation under Section 13 (3A) was made by the Appellants rather settlement proposals were made which was duly considered and refused by the Respondents.

8. Learned DRT recorded a finding that Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was duly served upon the Appellants. Omission to make a provision for redemption in the notice could not nullify the notice as Appellants were never ready and willing to redeem the property by tendering the outstanding dues.

9. I