Shyam Sundar Gourisaria vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 19 August 2025

Page.No.

**KOLKATA DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2** **IN ORDER SHEET** CHYAM SUNDAR GOURISARIA. **IN** (Continuation) **IN**

Case No.

**Vs** **STATE BANK OF INDIA**

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr>

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="131 258 204 923"> <p align="center"><b>19</b></p> <p>19.08.2025</p> </td> <td data-bbox="204 258 778 923"> <p><b>COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES</b><br/> Prasenjit Paul, Adv .....For the Applicant<br/> Ajit Keshari, Adv .....For the Defendant Bank<br/> A Pramanick, Adv</p> <p>This MA has been filed for directing the OPs to forthwith pay a sum of Rs 12,50,000/- only together with interest thereon @6% p.a from the date of respective deposit and till the date of refund in terms of the order dated 08.02.2023 and also for initiating proceeding against the OPs for deliberate and willful disobedience of order passed by the Tribunal.</p> <p>2. The factual matrix of the case is that on or about 29.04.2022, a sale notice was published by Authorised Officer SBI concerning various loan accounts and for e-auction sale of different properties. At serial no.2 of the paper publication, property of one Sri Govinda Prasad Kundu situated at Kamrar Math (Gaur Bhaban) at Nutan Ganj Ward No.05, Bankura Municipality, Holding No.230/13, J.L. No. 205, Khatian.No.1086, Plot No.346(P), measuring about 6.80 decimals was put on sale at a reserve price of Rs.48 Lakhs for recovery of claim of SBI of the loan account of one Vivekanand Kundu.</p> <p>3. The petitioner being a bonafide purchaser participated in the e-auction by depositing earnest money of Rs.4.80 Lakhs. The bid of Rs.50lakhs submitted by the petitioner was the highest and accordingly by an email dated 31.05.2022, he was informed about the acceptance of his bid and was instructed to deposit 25% of the bid amount after deduction of the EMD. The petitioner further deposited Rs.7.70 Lakhs on 01.06.2022 and thus 25% of</p> </td>

</tr> </tbody> </table>

the bill was deposited.

*[Handwritten signature]* H.S.2

Page No.

KOLKATA DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2

ORDER SHEET

IN

Case No. TA/1636/2024

IN

SA/451/2022

SHYAM SUNDAR GOURISARIA.

Vs

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th style="text-align: center;">Date of Order</th> <th style="text-align: center;">Order with Signature</th> <th style="text-align: center;">Office action with Signature of parties when necessary</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"> <p>Contd..</p> <p>19.08.2025</p> </td> <td> <p style="text-align: center;">(2)</p> <p>4. Subsequently the petitioner came to know that the SARFAESI Application filed by the borrower was pending. The petitioner obtained certified copy of the order dated 21.06.2022 passed in that SA No.127/2019(M/S Bulu View Poultry &amp; Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Others Vs SBI &amp; Others.) by Ld PO DRT-II. On perusal of the aid order, the petitioner was shocked to know that was recorded therein that during the course of hearing on 21.06.2022, it was submitted by the Ld.Counsel representing the Defendant that under instruction no sale has taken place. That recording was completely erroneous and in fact e-auction was conducted on 31.05.2022 and the petitioner of this application was the highest bidder. After becoming aware of the fact of pendency of the case the petitioner advocate sent a letter dated 28.06.2022 calling upon the bank to extend the time for depositing the rest 75% of the bid amount till providing the physical possession of the property failing which the opposite party bank was called upon to refund the amount of Rs.12,50,000 with interest within three months from the date of the receipt. The pendency of the SA was not disclosed in the sale notice.</p> <p>5: The opposite part bank replied by letter dated 01.07.2022 received by the petitioner on 04.07.2022 in which bank stated that the property for which the bid was submitted was not the subject matter of SA 127/2019 pending before DRT-II, Kolkata. With that letter, acting arbitrarily and wrongfully forfeited the</p> </td>

<p>STATE BANK OF INDIA</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

deposited amount of Rs.12,50,000

6. An application under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act was filed being SA 451/2022 for quashing/setting aside the Page No.

**ORDER SHEET**

IN

Case No. \_\_\_\_\_

STATE BANK OF INDIA

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr>

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="131 258 201 922"></td> <td data-bbox="201 258 776 922"> <p>decision for forfeiting the amount and for refund of the amount with 18% of interest from the date of the deposit.</p> <p>7. That SARFAESI application was allowed on 08.02.2023(Annexure "A") and the Tribunal has directed the Respondent to refund the deposited amount with simple interest @6% p.a. till the actual payment within one month from the date of order. The aforesaid final order passed in SA 451/2022 was challenged before the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata in Appeal No.64/2023. The said appeal was dismissed on contest vide final order and judgment dated 31.01.2024 and confirm the judgment passed by DRT-II, Kolkata on 08.02.2023(Judgment of Hon'ble DRAT annexed as annexure 'B').</p> <p>8. The Applicant has lodged Caveat in the High Court and till date has not been served with the copy of any application challenging the order of Hon'ble DRAT.</p> <p>9. The Applicant thereafter demanded the payment of the amount in terms of the order dated 08.02.2023 passed in SA 451/2022 by a letter( Letter annexure 'C'). The applicant requested the bank to comply the order but no step was taken by the bank in the direction. The opposite party is under obligation to refund the amount deposited. It has further been made out that it is a willful and deliberate disobedience and it requires initiation of necessary proceeding against the opposite party. The opposite party appear and filed written objection. The case of the defendant as made out in the written objection is that the application is misconceived and</p> </td>

</tr> </tbody> </table>

Contd.. 19.08.2025

liable to be dismissed.

Page No.

KOLKATA DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2

ORDER SHEET

(Continuation)

Case No. MA/12/2024 IN IA/1636/2024 IN

Ys **SHYAM SUNDAR GOURISARIA.**

<table border="1" style="width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse;"> <thead> <tr> <th style="width: 10%; text-align: center;">Date of Order</th> <th style="width: 70%; text-align: center;">Order with Signature</th> <th style="width: 20%; text-align: center;">Office action with date and dated Signature of parties when necessary</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td style="text-align: center;">SA/451/2022</td> <td style="text-align: center;">STATE BANK OF INDIA</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="text-align: center;">Contd..<br/><br/>19.08.2025</td> <td>

<p>10. It has been set out that on or about 22.07.2011 M/S Bulu View Poultry &amp; Agrotech Pvt Ltd represented by its director, (referred to as borrower) who applied CC facility to the tune of Rs.1 crore only and term loan to the tune of Rs.3 crores only, aggregating to a sum of Rs.4 crore only for the purpose of extension of the business. The bank sanctioned credit facility to the sum on 14.06.2012 by a letter of arrangement. Agreement of loan cum hypothecation was executed. The borrowers, Sri Vivekananda Kundu, Sri Ritesh Kundu &amp; Sri Govinda Prasad Kundu agreed to secure the facility. The all three stood as guarantors by executing a guarantee agreement in favour of the bank. The said is continuing and the security shall remain in force till the entire claim is paid. On 30.08.2013 borrower again applied for renewal of the existing CC facility. By letter of arrangement dated 25.11.2013 the credit facility was sanctioned. On 27.03.2016 the directors again applied for the enhancement of the CC facility to 1,12,00,000. Sri Vivekananda Kundu deposited with the bank the original title deed relating to the land and building measuring about 2.90 acres at Village and Mouza Aral Bashi, PO Rajagram, J.L No.190, Khatian No.373, Plot No. 510 standing in the name of Sri Vivekananda Kundu in order to create equitable mortgage. Ritesh Kundu also deposited original title deed relating to land and building measuring about 4.27 acres at village and Mouza Aral Bashi, PO Rajagram, J.L No.190, Khatian No.342, Plot No. 510 standing in the name of Sri Ritesh Kundu</p> </td> <td></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

in order to create equitable mortgage.

*[Handwritten signature]* 19.8.25

Page.No.

14/12/2022

IN **ORDER SHEET**

IN SA/451/2022

SHRAM SUNDAR CHANDRIARIA.

Case No. \_\_\_\_\_

Vs **STATE BANK OF INDIA**

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th data-bbox="121 188 200 258">Date of Order</th> <th data-bbox="200 188 765 258">Order with Signature<br/>(5)<br/>Sri Govinda Prasad Kundu also deposited the original title deed</th> <th data-bbox="765 188 900 258">Office action with date and dated Signature of parties when necessary</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="121 258 200 923"> <p><u>Contd...</u><br/> 19.08.2025</p> </td> <td data-bbox="200 258 765 923"> <p>relating to two storied residential building situated Kamrur Math(Gauhi Bhavan) at Natun Ganj, Ward No.5, Bankura Municipality, Holding No.230/13, J.I No.205, Khatian No.1086, Plot No.346(P) measuring about 6.80 decimals in order to create mortgage.</p> <p>11. The borrowers/ guarantors thereafter defaulted, the account became NPA on 31.03.2007. Finding no alternative application u/s 19 of the RDB Act being OA No.362 has been filed for recover of sum of Rs.3,68,53,706.02 (Rupees Three Crores Sixty Eight Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Six and Two Paisa). 13(2) notice was issued, possession notice was also issued. Due to some error a fresh notice u/s 13(4) of the Act was issued on 21.03.2022 withdrawing the earlier one. The notice was also published in the two leading newspapers as per "the Rules". The borrower preferred an application being SA No.127/2019, that SA was dismissed by an order dated 23.08.2024. An application along with affidavit was filed before DM, Bankura u/s 14 of the Act and the order was passed on 28.06.2022 consequent upon that position has been taken.</p> <p>12. The property was put on sale, the applicant was declared the H-1 bidder. The applicant by their letter requested the bank to extend their time upto 30.06.2022 for depositing the rest of the amount. His request was considered that no further extension shall be considered. The applicant failed to comply with the terms and conditions, so the amount so deposited was forfeited.</p> <p>13. Aggrieved by the forfeiture of the bid amount the applicant filed one SA being SA No.451/2022 and vide order dated 08.02.2023</p> </td>

</tr> </tbody> </table>

that SA was allowed by DRT-II, Kolkata.

Page No.

KOLKATA DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2

ORDER SHEET

IN Case No. MA/1636/2024 IN SA/451/2022

SHYAM SUNDAR GOURISARIA Vs

<table border="1" style="width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse;"> <thead> <tr> <th style="width: 10%; text-align: center;">Date of Order</th> <th style="width: 60%; text-align: center;">Order with Signature</th> <th style="width: 30%; text-align: center;">STATE BANK OF INDIA<br/>Signature of parties when necessary</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"> <p><u>Contd...</u></p>

</td>

<p>Against that order an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata being Appeal No.64/2023 and by judgment dated 31.01.2024 the Appeal was dismissed. Against the order of Appeal one Civil Revision was preferred being CO No.1746/2024 before the Hon'ble HC at Calcutta. It's still running on list.</p> <p>14. Till the revision is decided by the Hon'ble Court it cannot be said that it is a deliberate disobedience. The application is frivolous and misconceived. The prayer has been made to dismiss the application.</p> <p>15. The issue therefore is whether the application is fit to be allowed or not.</p> <p>16. The sole ground taken by the opposite party is that the matter has not yet been clothed with finality as the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Court.</p> <p>17. Nothing has been brought on record by either of the parties regarding status of the case. From the perusal of the case status as shown on the website of the Hon'ble Court it appears that CO.1746/2024 was dismissed for default on 27.01.2025 by the Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raja Basu Chaudhury. Later on CAN 1 of 2025 relating to that CO 1746/2024 is being shown as pending. Moreover there is no stay order on the proceeding before the Tribunal.</p> <p>18. Therefore I do find that this MA has merit and is fit to be allowed.</p> </td> <td style="vertical-align: top;"></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Page No.**KOLKATA DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2**

IN

IA/1636/2024

**ORDER SHEET**

(Continuation)

SHYAM SUNDAR GOURISARIA.

Case No. IN SA/451/2022

Vs

STATE BANK OF INDIA

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr>

</tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="131 261 203 922"></td> <td data-bbox="203 261 774 922"> <p style="text-align: center;">(7)</p> <p style="text-align: center;"><u>ORDERED</u></p> <p>The instant MA No.12/2024 is allowed on contest. The bank is under obligation to refund the amount to the applicant. Hence the opposite party is directed to comply the order passed by this Tribunal on 08.02.2023 in SA No. 451/2022 for refund of the amount with Simple Interest @6% p.a. from the date of deposit (s) till the date of actual payment. This order shall be subject to the final decision of the CO 1746/2024 pending before the Hon'ble Court.</p> <p>The order must be executed within one month from the date of the order/ from the production of the order, failing which suitable proceedings shall be initiated against the bank. <b>MA stands disposed off along with all the IAs.</b></p> <p style="text-align: right;"> <br/> (Arbind Madhan)<br/> Presiding Officer<br/> DRT-2, Kolkata </p> <p style="text-align: left;">kkb</p> </td>

</tr> </tbody> </table>

Contd..

19.08.2025