Review under DRT Rules limited to errors apparent on record; cannot reintroduce omitted grounds or serve as appeal. Res judicata bars successive challenges to sale notice post-auction. Section 14 delay directory.

JUDGMENT : 18 March, 2026

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

1. Instant appeal has been preferred against order dated 23" December, 2025, passed by Learned DRT-II, Kolkata in S.A. 124 of 2025 (M/s. Paramananda Hardware & Builders -vs- Indian Bank) whereby I.A. 1886 of 2025, I.A. 1887 of 2025 and I.A. 2144 of 2025 are dismissed by the Learned DRT by a common judgment.

2. Facts of the case, as per pleadings, are that Appellants herein, M/s. Paramananda Hardware & Builders, are the Borrowers of Respondent No. 1, Bank of India, who availed the loan facility. S.A. 124 of 2025 was filed before the Learned DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) assailing the notice dated 20.1.2025 issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act.

3. Pending S.A., I.A. 1501 of 2025 was filed before the Learned DRT challenging the Sale Notice dated 18.6.2025. Sale was contemplated on 25.7.2025; Sale Notice was served upon Appellants on 24.6.2025 and was published in the newspaper ‘Financial Express’ in English and ‘Ekdin’ in Bengali on 19.6.2025. Objections against I.A. 1501 of 2025 was filed on 24.7.2025 and was also served on the same day upon the Appellants. I.A. 1501 of 2025 was considered by the Learned DRT and was dismissed on one ground, apart from other grounds taken by the Appellants. No opportunity was afforded to the Appellants to meet the allegations made by the Bank in the affidavit-in-opposition.

4. Appellants were trying to redeem the property by paying the entire legitimate debt due but could not do so. The Defendant Bank conducted the auction sale on 25.7.2025.

5. IA. 1886 of 2025 was filed for review of the order dated 24.7.2025 passed in I.A. 1501 of 2025.

6. Another I.A. 1887 of 2025 is also filed challenging the sale conducted by Respondent Bank and seeking statutory right of redemption by the Appellants. In the meantime, on 26.8.2025, Appellants were served with copy of the order dated 11.8.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalna under Section 14 of the Act.

7. IA. 2144 of 2025 is filed challenging the order of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalna passed under Section 14 of the Act on different grounds.

8. All the three I.A.s, I.A. 1886 of 2025, I.A. 1887 of 2025 and I.A. 2144 of 2025, were dismissed by the Learned DRT by the impugned order.

9. Ihave heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant as well as Secured Creditor and Auction Purchaser and perused the record.

10. Learned Counsel for Appellants would submit that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and irregularities.

11. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the appeal is preferred against the order dated 23'? December, 2025 whereby three I.A.s, I.A. 1886 of 2025, I.A. 1887 of 2025 and I.A. 2144 of 2025, were dismissed by the Learned DRT. Since all the three I.A.s were dismissed by a common order, one appeal is preferred which is maintainable.

12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would further submit that Securitisation Application, under Section 17 of the Act, was filed challenging the Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 17.9.2024, Notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act dated 20% January, 2025 and its paper publication on 22.1.2025.

13. Learned Counsel would submit that as per th