09.07.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 02 Sandip IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE M.A.T. 1070 of 2026 IA No : CAN 1 of 2026 M/s. A. R. Stores & Anr. -Versus- Canara Bank & Ors. Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta, Mr. Biswapriya Samanta, Mr. Raktim Siddhanta, Mr. Sabyasachi Howlader …..for the appellants. Mr. Farooque Ali, Mr. Faizan Md. Zafar ….for the respondent bank. 1) We do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated June 22, 2026. 2) His Lordship only directed the District Magistrate to take steps in terms of Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’ in short) 3) First and foremost, the borrower does not have any right of audience when a proceeding under Section 14 is instituted by the secured creditor and is considered by the authority. 4) Secondly, the District Magistrate is not an adjudicating authority, but he discharges a ministerial function. 5) If the application of the secured creditor is in order, the District Magistrate has to pass necessary directions in accordance with the provisions of the Section 14 of the said Act. 6) Mr. Samanta, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the order of His Lordship is perverse. His Lordship had opined that the revisional application was unconnected and unrelated to the subject dispute. 7) We find that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act had been initiated by the secured creditor. The liability of the appellants/borrowers, along with interest, as per the notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, dated April 13, 2023, was more than Rs. 20 lakhs. 8) The bank had filed an original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal –III, Kolkata. The said proceeding was disposed of on November 19, 2025. The original application was allowed. The bank was allowed to recover the amount of Rs. 23,91,392.18/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 6.9% per annum, with simple interest on the amount due from the date of filing of the original application, that is, June 20, 2024 till full and final realization of the claim amount. 9) The bank was debarred from disposing of, alienating and dealing with the property till the aforesaid decreetal amount was recovered from the defendant/borrower. The appellants were given 30 days from the date of judgment and order to repay the amount. In the event the borrower failed to pay the dues the bank was entitled to recover its dues by disposing of the secured assets. 10) Moreover, the Tribunal directed that the certificate of recovery should be drawn up by the learned Registrar in terms of the judgment and order and in favour of the bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts and 2 Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Such order has been challenged by filing a Civil Revision before the High Court. 11) However, we are informed that no order has yet been passed in favour of the appellants in the revisional application. Under such circumstances, the secured creditor cannot sit idle and be prevented from recovery of the dues in the mode and manner prescribed by law. Moreover, proceedings under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act operate in separate fields. 12) In any event, His Lordship had directed the District Magistrate to pass necessary orders. The appellants have a remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, if the appellants are aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate. If there is any procedural irregularity or if the decision of the District Magistrate is ex-facie contrary to law, the issues can be raised before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition is pending and all points are kept open. 13) Under such circumstances, the appeal and the application are disposed of without any interference. 14) However, the observation of His Lordship that the revisional application is unconnected and unrelated is deleted, the revisional application will be decided independently. If the appellants choose to approach the Tribunal challenging the order of the District Magistrate, the Tribunal will decide the matter independently without being influenced by the observations made in this proceeding. 3 15) Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Smita Das De, J.) 4