ARINDAM SINHA, J. - (1.) This writ petition is at the instance of a person covered under the definition of borrower given in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI, Act). Petitioner stood guarantor for principal borrower, the latter having defaulted in repaying the borrowings and interest. A cold storage situated in District-Burdwan was mortgaged by the guarantor in support of his guarantee. The property was secured for repayment of the loan. The bank issued sale notice dated 31st January, 2016 for sale of the secured property. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the successful auction bidders. Their bidwas accepted by the bank and upon deposit of earnest money, they were given time to put in the balance. They did not deposit the balance within time. The bank forfeited the earnest and cancelled the sale. It proceeded to issue another sale notice dated 8th April, 2016.
(2.) Some time in May, 2016, respondent nos. 3 and 4 had applied to Debts Recovery Tribunal-I for, inter alia, quashing letters dated 9th March, 2016 and 11th May, 2016 issued by the bank forfeiting earnest money deposited by them. By order dated 20th May, 2016 the said application was allowed. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 thus became auction purchasers of the secured property.
(3.) The borrower challenged the subsequent sale notice in Debts Recovery Tribunal-II since the said Bench had territorial jurisdiction in respect of the secured property. This application was made on 8th June, 2016. By order dated 16th June, 2016 Debts Recovery Tribunal-II set aside the second sale notice dated 8th April, 2016 with direction for issuance afresh. The borrower then appears to have got wind of what had happened in the other Tribunal regarding his mortgaged property as sold in auction. He approached Debts Recovery Tribunal-I for recalling its order dated 20th May, 2016. The said Tribunal by order dated 10th November, 2016 rejected the application on the ground that remedy of the borrower was tofile an appeal as he not having been a party to the SARFAESI application, could not invoke review jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The borrower then moved this Court for interference against the said order dated 10th November, 2016 as one having been made without authority of law.;