Reportable/Non-Reportable IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON Appeal No. 55 of 2017 (Arising out of O.A. 106 of 2010 in DRT, Guwahati)

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata -700 001 and carrying on business, inter-alia, from its G.S. Road Branch at G.S. Road, Ulubari, Guwahati. …Appellant -Versus-

1(a). Rabin Talukdar, son of Late Monomati Talukdar at 27, Kalapahar Hill Side, Binova Nagar, Guwahati – 781 108;

1(b). Rita Barua, daughter of Late Monomati Talukdar at 27, Kalapahar Hill Side, Binova Nagar, Guwahati – 781 108;

2. M/s. Preronaa Transport & Carrying Company Private Limited, having its office at 27, Kalapahar Hill Side, Binova Nagar, Guwahati – 781 108.

... Respondents Counsel for the Appellants … Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti With Appeal No. 08 of 2024 (Arising out of O.A. 106 of 2010 in DRT, Guwahati)

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata - 700 001 and carrying on business, inter-alia, from its G.S. Road Branch at G.S. Road, Ulubari, Guwahati. …Appellant -Versus-

1(a). Rabin Talukdar, son of Late Monomati Talukdar at 27, Kalapahar Hill Side, Binova Nagar, Guwahati – 781 108;

1(b). Rita Barua, daughter of Late Monomati Talukdar at 27, Kalapahar Hill Side, Binova Nagar, Guwahati – 781 108;

2. M/s. Preronaa Transport & Carrying Company Private Limited, having its office at 27, Kalapahar Hill Side, Binova Nagar, Guwahati – 781 108.

... Respondents Counsel for the Appellants … Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti JUDGMENT : 15^th December, 2025 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant. None is present for the Respondent although duly served.

2. Perused the records. Since both the matters are inter- connected and arises out of the same proceedings they are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.

3. The facts of the matter are that O.A. 106 of 2010 (Union Bank of India -vs- M/s Preronaa Transport & Carrying Co. Private Limited) was allowed by the Learned DRT, Guwahati on 25.9.2014. Thereafter, M.A. 109 of 2015 was filed by the Defendants for adjourning the matter for six weeks for payment of settlement amount; which request was declined by the Learned DRT vide order dated 2.12.2015 wherein a direction was also issued that Bank should file revised Statement of Account before the Recovery Officer. An attachment order was issued by the Recovery Officer on 18.9.2015. Thereafter, a Writ Petition No. 6808 of 2015 was filed before the Hon’ble High Court, Guwahati which was disposed of on 20.11.2015 wherein the Hon’ble High Court granted 21 days time to the writ petitioner to arrange for a probable purchaser before fixation of the reserve price by the Recovery Officer. In doing so, the petitioner should also inform the Bank as well as the Recovery Officer. Thereafter again on 27.1.2016 time was extended for thirty days to complete the sale process on the basis of the statement of the Petitioner Counsel that the petitioner may arrange for the probable purchaser. Subsequently, on 6.6.2016, Hon’ble High Court, Guwahati held that no ground to extend the time for the borrower to privately sell the mortgaged property is made out.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

4. Thereafter, a Review Petition No. 04 of 2016 was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being M.A. 115 of 2016 for condoning the delay of 596 days in filing the review petition to review the judgment and order dated 24.7.2014 passed in O.A. 106 of 2010. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was ultimately allowed by the Learned DRT vide order dated 27.1.2017 which is challenged by the Appellant in the Appeal No. 55 of 2017.

5. As far as allo