sangam milk producers campany Ltd vs Venkateswara Milk Dairy and Ors on 17 August 2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA I.A. No. 502 of 2026 Appeal No. 81 of 2024 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON Order No. 20 17.08.2026

M/s. Sangam Milk Producers Co. Ltd.

... Appellant --Vs— M/s. Sri Venkateswara Milk Dairy & Ors.

.... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sujit Lal Sircar, ld. Adv.

For Respondent : Ms. Debjani Ghosal, ld. Adv. R-1, 2 & 3. Mr. Mani Kunjam, ld. Adv. Ms. Aparajita Rao, ld. Adv. for bank THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

I.A. No. 502 of 2026 is filed by the bank under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for filing additional evidences. SARFAESI proceeding conducted by the bank, respondent no.4 herein, against respondent no. 1,2 and 3, borrower, who filed opposition to the I.A. Learned counsel for appellant auction purchaser supporting the argument advanced by respondent no.4, bank. Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the learned DRT, Visakhapatnam in S.A. 289 of 2020 whereby learned DRT set aside the sale notice, auction notice and cancel the sale deed executed by the bank on the basis of auction dated 24.11.2020. Auction purchaser challenged the impugned judgment and order by preferring present appeal. Interestingly, bank did not challenge the impugned order. However, bank is made party in the appeal as respondent no.4.

It was observed by the learned DRT that the property was sold at undervalue. Further, proof of service of sale notice along with affixation is also not available. Even service of notice u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act were also not filed. Learned counsel for bank would submit that documents to be produced under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which could not be filed before the learned DRT due to wrong legal advice, although the documents were available with the bank. They are necessary documents for proper adjudication of the matter. The documents are as under :

a. Statement of Accounts for the period of 100 days prior to classification of the three accounts of the borrower as NPA.

b. Notice dated 05.07.2016 with personal acknowledgment and postal acknowledgement.

c. Possession notice dated 26.09.2016 with personal acknowledgement and proof of affixture.

d. Photograph showing affixation of possession notice.

e. Sale notice dated 06.11.2020 with paper publication.

f. Valuation report dated 29.10.2020.

g. OTS letter given by the borrower. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Chowdappa Vs. Hanumantharayappa & Ors. [2026 SCC OnLine SC 1509] Per contra, Learned counsel for respondent no.1,2 and 3 opposes the prayer and submits that if the documents were within the custody of the bank that should have been filed earlier before the learned DRT in the pending S.A. Present appeal is pending for last two years, but the documents were not filed.

Learned counsel submits that documents could not be taken on record under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. As far as legal proposition is concerned, in the case of Gobind Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2026)4 SCC 130] Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 22 has observed as under “ “Thus a holistic reading of the aforesaid decision in Ibrahim Uddin makes it clear that the appellate court’s inquiry, while considering an application for leading additional evidence, is confined to examining whether such evidence is necessary to remove a lacuna in the case. More importantly the appellate court may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied that the conditions expressly stipulated under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. Consequently, the provision has no application where the appellate court in a position to render a satisfactory and reasoned judgment on the basis of the evidence already available on record.” Further in a recent judgment in the case Chowdappa (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law in Para 12, which reads as under : “12. The decisions relied on by the Appellant can be captured and summarised as follows: 12.1 An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an Application for Additional Evidence on its merits. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final Judgment. 12.2 The Application must be considered simultaneously with the hearing of the main Appeal on its merits to determine whether the Court “requires” the documents to pronounce Judgment or for any other substantial cause. 12.3 The Appellate Court must pass a specific order either allowing or rejecting the application. If the production of documents is allowed, the Court is obligated to record its reasons for admission. 12.4 Before undertaking the exercise of evaluating the additional evidence, the Appellate Court must first examine the party’s pleadings to ensure that the foundational case set up supports the introduction of the proposed evidence. 12.5 Dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error and results in a severe miscarriage of justice.”

If we go through the record, we find that for due and proper adjudication of the matter the documents in question are to be taken on record. On examination of pleadings of the parties, we are of the view that the documents in question should have been taken on record for proper decision of the matter, which are covered under the provision of Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) CPC. Accordingly, I.A. 502 of 2026 is allowed subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as costs to be paid to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within a week. Respondent no.1,2 and 3 would be at liberty to file evidence on rebuttal within four weeks. I.A. 694 of 2025 filed by the respondent no.1,2 and 3 shall be considered at the time of hearing of appeal. List on 19.11.2026 for hearing. Interim order to continue till the next date of listing. (Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson Dated : 17.08.2026 17/pkb