Reportable/Non-Reportable IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA (Misc. Appeal Diary No. 237 of 2025)

(Arising out of I.A. 447 of 2025 in S.A. 69 of 2025 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

1. Baddila Chandrasekhar, son of Badidla Narayana, Resident of Kakarakyalapalli Village, House of Valasapalli, Madanapalle Rural, Annmayya District - 517 325;

2. K. Guruva Reddy, son of K. Dilip Reddy, Resident of Plot No.202, Door No. 239, 16th Sector, HSR Layout, Agarwal Bhavan, Adithi, Bangalore City – 560 102, Karnataka.

… Appellant -Versus-

1. Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, SVU Campus, Tirupati 517 502, Andhra Pradesh;

2. Iswarya Enterprises, A partnership Firm, represented by its Managing Partner P. Ramnath, Door No. 9-148/C, Madanpalle Road, Nallacheruvu (Village and Post), Sri Sathya Sai District 515 551, Andhra Pradesh;

3. Mr. P. Ramnath, son of Late P. Shankar Narayan Shetty, proprietor of Snehit Enterprises, Nalla Cheruvu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh - 515 551.

… Respondents Counsel for Appellants … Mr. Nemani Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No. 1 … Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee JUDGMENT : 23^rd April, 2025 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

I.A. 138 of 2025 Application praying for waiver of pre-deposit under Proviso to Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002.

Instant appeal has been preferred by a third party who is neither Borrower nor Guarantor, hence issue of pre- deposit does not arise. Accordingly, I.A. 138 of 2025 stands disposed of.

Admit the appeal by providing regular appeal number.

Appeal is being disposed of at the ‘Admission’ stage.

Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant as well as the Learned Counsel for the Bank and perused the record.

Challenge is made to the order dated 13.2.2025 whereby Learned DRT has refused to grant any stay prayed for by the Appellants.

At the very outset Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submits that challenge to the Sale Notice was made by the Appellant in the Securitisation Application but sale could not be conducted for want of bidders. Hence the Sale Notice becomes infructuous. Accordingly, this appeal also becomes infructuous. This factual position is not disputed by the Learned Counsel for Appellant, however, it is submitted that Learned DRT has erred in passing an unreasoned order. As far as merits of the matter are concerned since the auction sale could not be held for want of bidders, the auction notice has already become infructuous. However, perusal of the impugned order reflects that no reasons are recorded by the Learned DRT for arriving on its conclusion. It is expected from the Courts/Tribunals to pass a reasoned order which is the soul of an order. An unreasoned order could not be appreciated under the law. However, since the Sale Notice has already become infructuous, this appeal also becomes infructuous and is accordingly dismissed with the observation made in the body of the order.

All the issues raised by the Appellant are kept open for consideration by the Learned DRT and DRT should decide the S.A. in accordance with law.

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

File be consigned to Record room. Order pronounced in open Court.

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J)

Chairperson Dated: 23^rd April, 2025

01/ac