KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs MS BELLS CONTROLS LTD AND ORS on 10 September 2026

**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA**

**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON**

Appeal No. 27 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 14.7.2022 in O.A. 101 of 2007 in DRT-I, Kolkata)

Order No. 31 10.09.2026

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited ... Appellant

-Vs-

M/s. Bells Controls Limited & 4 Others ... Respondents

Mr. Pratik Ghose with Mr. Avishek Roy Chowdhury, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

Mr. Nimish Mishra, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5

**THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:**

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is a peculiar case wherein a pending application is filed by an Intervenor seeking impleadment in the O.A. proceedings with a further reference for restraining the Appellant Bank from taking any coercive measure against the Respondents herein.

Undisputedly, O.A. 101 of 2007 was filed by the Appellant against the Defendant Borrowers under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which was pending. Pending proceedings, I.A. 1385 of 2022 was filed for taking up I.A. 1613 of 2019 for hearing with a prayer for restraining the Bank from interfering in the rights of the

Appellant as tenant. I.A. 1613 of 2019 was filed earlier for injunction against the Bank from interfering with the possession of the Appellants.

It appears that the matter was taken up by Learned DRT on 14.7.2022 wherein objections were invited against both the I.A.s. Prima facie, Learned DRT observed that the Intervenors are the lessee by way of a registered lease deed which was also recognized by the Assignor, State Bank of India, and accordingly, till the disposal of the I.A.s, interim protection, as prayed for, was granted.

Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the impugned order suffers from material illegality as the Respondent was not even impleaded in the O.A. proceedings and an interim order was passed. It is further submitted that if Respondent was having any grievance against any action of the Bank, he could have availed the remedy, as provided under the law, but not in a proceedings under Section 19 of the Act.

Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent would submit that the Respondent is not obstructing any legal measure being adopted by the Bank to recover its dues from its Borrower. However, since Respondent was having a legal right over the premises in question on the basis of the registered lessee deed, he moved the application before the Learned DRT to protect his rights. It is further submitted that in the year 2019 or 2022 no other forum was available to the Respondents to ventilate its grievances.

As far as the impugned order is concerned, interim protection was granted till the disposal of the I.A.s, i.e., I.A. 1613 of 2019 and I.A. 1385 of 2022. It is submitted that objections have already been filed although Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that he has not been served with the copies. If it is so, let the copies be served upon the Respondents. However, since the issue has to be disposed of by the Learned DRT, let the matter be remitted to DRT to decide the I.A.s in accordance with law, however, keeping in mind that the Respondent could have also availed the remedy permissible under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

With the observation made above, appeal is disposed of with direction to the Learned DRT to dispose of the pending I.A.s, I.A. 1613 of 2019 and I.A. 1385 of 2022, expeditiously preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date copy of this order is placed before the Learned DRT.

File be consigned to Record room.

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's Website.

Order pronounced in open Court.

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

Dated: 10^th September, 2026 21/ac

10.09.2026