The court concluded that the Securitisation Application was barred by limitation, confirming the priority of the Respondent Bank's mortgage over the Appellant's claims.

JUDGMENT : 24th February, 2026

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

Instant Appeal has arisen against a judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by Learned DRT- 3 Kolkata in S.A. No. 113 of 2013 whereby Learned DRT dismissed the S.A. filed by the Appellants.

2. As per pleadings of the parties, Appellant herein is the financial institution who was earlier working under the name of M/s Navalco Commodities Pvt. Ltd. which subsequently was renamed as M/s Cygnus Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. An Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was filed by the Appellant against State Bank of India and one Lipi Sirkar who died pending Appeal and her legal representatives were impleaded as opposite parties/ Respondents before the DRT. As per Appellants, they lent certain financial assistance to Soumyarup Sirkar, Respondent No. 3(b), son and legal heir of late Lipi Sirkar and to secure the loan late Lipi Sirkar mortgaged the property at 170 Das Para Road, Kolkata by creating equitable mortgage on 05.03.2011 along with the Title Deed, Gift Deed dated 20% March, 1942 between Sri Charu Poali as the donor and Sri Lal Behari Dey as donee and the Deed of Gift dated 22"4 April, 1964 by Sri Sukanti Bose Donor in favour of Smt. Aruna Bose Donee. Aruna Bose is mother of Lipi Sirkar. Aruna Bose died on 19.02.2005 and deed has been gifted to Lipi Sarkar. Vacant possession was handed over by Lipi Sarkar to the Appellant. On or about 19.12.2012, a Notice under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was pasted on the secured assets which provides that a sum of Rs.7,18, 89,156.10 was due and owing to the State Bank of India by (1) M/s Subir Sirkar & sons, (2) Mrs. Sreerupa Sirkar, (3) Mrs. Thia Banerjee, (4) Smt. Lipi Sirkar and (5) Shri Subir Sarkar. Appellant raised an objection to the Bank intimating that the notice was pertaining to 115, Daspara Road, Kolkata -700016 which has no concern with premises No. 170 Das Para Road Kolkata. Further, it was informed that premises No. 170 Das Para Road Kolkata was mortgaged by Lipi Sirkar in favour of the Appellant. Thereafter vide letter dated 29.05.2013, Learned District Magistrate (South) 24 Parganas was also informed about the same facts.

3. On 13 September, 2013, certain persons visited the premises and informed that they are the recovery agents appointed by the State Bank of India. Premises No. 170 Daspara Road is mortgaged with the State Bank of India. The Learned District Magistrate has passed an order dated 15% July 2013 to hand over the possession to State Bank of India under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 . Subsequent thereto, a petition was filed before the Learned District Magistrate on 16.09.2013 by the Appellants. Appellants were verbally informed by the office of District Magistrate on 30% September, 2013 that the District Magistrate has no power to recall its orders passed under Section 14 of the Act.

4. It is further alleged that no 9 point affidavit was filed by the Authorised Officer before the Learned District Magistrate and the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are illegal. Accordingly, Application under Section 17 of the Act was filed by the Appellants challenging the order of the Learned District Magistrate passed under Section 14 of the Act with a further relief to restrain the Bank from taking in the possession of the Appellant.

5. Opposition filed by the Respondent State Bank of India before the Learned DRT stating that Subir Sarkar being proprietor of M/s Subir Sarkar & sons availed credit facilities vide sanction le