Reportable / not reportable IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson APPEAL No. 46 of 2025 (Arising out of S.A. 44 of 2023 – DRT-Cuttack)

17.07.2025 Debendra Nath Das residing at Plot no 1579, Fourth Lane A Talabania, Bhaktamadhu Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751130 ... Appellant --Vs--

1. Authorised Officer-cum- Chief Manager, UNION BANK OF INDIA having office at Square Branch, Plot no 121 and 122, Ground Floor Unit III Kharvela Nagar, Station Square, Bhubaneswar 751130

2.SRI RAKESH KUMAR MALLICK residing at PRADHANPUR, P.O- BASUDEBPUR, BHADRAK, Odisha 756125.

... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Ld. Advocate For Respondent: Ms. Anandita Das, ld. Advocate.

The Appellate Tribunal Instant appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgement and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned DRT Cuttack in S.A. 44 of 2023 (Debendra Nath Das Vs. AO-cum-Chief Manager, Union Bank of India & Anr.) whereby learned DRT dismissed the securitization application filed by the appellant.

2. As per pleadings of the parties, facts of the matter are that a securitization application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was filed by the appellant challenging the E-auction sale notice dated 22.02.2023 conducted on 28.03.2023. The appellant is a guarantor in CC Loan account of Rs.90.00 lakh availed by M/s S. R. Retail Zone Pvt. Ltd. from the erstwhile Corporation Bank (now merged with Union Bank of India) by creating equitable mortgage of dwelling house. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA. Sale notice dated 20.02.2023 was issued indicating recovery amount of Rs.1,23,11,932.50. Possession notice was issued on 13.07.2012. Even thereto the property of the borrower was sold at Rs.15.00 lakh, property of co-borrower Nalinikanta Pattanaik was sold at Rs.30.00 lakh and release the property of another co- guarantor Sri Sarbeswar Samal (deposited by him) and 29.00 lakh was deposited by borrower. Bank has realized Rs.74.00 lakh by selling the mortgage property of borrow and to guarantors.

3. An O.A. was filed by the bank u/s 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for an amount of Rs.57,79,139.50 which was decided by the learned DRT on 19.02.2021 for a recovery certificate of Rs.34,09,139.50. The judgement and order passed by learned DRT in O.A. 237 of 2013 was before this Appellate Tribunal as Appeal Dy. No.172 of 2022 wherein pre-deposit was also made.

4. Borrower submitted OTS proposal to the bank which was approved by the bank on 13.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.30,31,388.50 with upfront money of Rs.5.36 lakh, out of which Rs.3.00 lakh was paid by the borrower as upfront money, but rest amount was not paid. OTS was not fructified. E-auction sale notice was issued on 20.02.2023 fixing the auction date on 28.03.2023 for a reserve price of Rs.86.95 lakhs. Sale notice was issued showing recovery amount of Rs.1,23,11,932.50.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellant that sale notice dated 20.02.2023 is illegal. It is stated that outstanding amount in the loan account as determined in the O.A. proceeding by the DRT was Rs.34,09,139.50 only. OTS proposal was duly approved, but cancelled for some oblique reasons. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the sale notice dated 20.02.2023 with consequential reliefs.

6. Reply was filed by the bank stating that O.A. 237 of 2013 was filed by the bank wherein recovery certificate for Rs.34,09,139.50 was issued on 19.02.2021 for realization.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order passed in O.A. proceeding, borrower filed an appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. OTS proposal was made by the borrower which was approved. Upfront amount of Rs.3.00 lakh was paid, but rest amount was not paid. Thereafter, another application dated 10.01.2023 forwarded to the bank with an account payee cheque of Rs.32,67,388.50 dated 18.01.2023. OTS proposal was cancelled. E-auction