C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 04.08.26 D/L Sl-06 Ct. 07 (Samar) WPA 18660 of 2026 Madan Mohan Paul & Anr. Vs. UCO Bank & Ors. Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyay, Mr. Tirthankar Basu, Mr. Suman Biswas, …. for the Petitioners Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh, Ms. Madhu Shaw, …. for the UCO Bank. 1. As prayed for leave is granted to the petitioner to correct the cause title and the description of the respondent no. 1. 2. The petitioner assails an order dated June 24, 2026 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal –II, Kolkata whereby the petitioners’ interlocutory application being I.A 8516 of 2026 has been disposed of. 3. The petitioner a borrower of the respondent no. 1 i.e. UCO Bank, has availed of certain credit facilities by mortgaging immovable property for securing repayment thereof. The said credit facilities are allegedly in default. 4. UCO Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In such process, the said Bank had put 2 up its secured assets for sale through auction under the 2002 Act. 5. Assailing the action taken by the Bank under the 2002 Act, the petitioner has approached the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing TSA 2673 of 2026. 6. Subsequently, the petitioner took out an interlocutory application being I.A 8456 of 2026 thereby assailing the sale procedure. The said application was requested to be heard out of turn upon the proponent of date, by filing an application for putting up of the records. The said application for putting up a records being I.A 8516 of 2026 was taken up by the learned Tribunal on June 24, 2026 and disposed of by the order impugned. 7. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the entire sale process deserves to be impeached inasmuch as, no notice of the sale as contemplated under the provisions of the 2002 Act and the Rules framed thereunder was ever served upon the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that the petitioner got knowledge about the sale only upon the sale proceeds bring credited in the petitioners’ account 3 and the same being subsequently debited to the petitioners loan account. 10. It is submitted that the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal ought not to have disposed of the application challenging the sale procedure itself without dealing with the same on merits. 11. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Bank authorities submits that by the order impugned only the “put up” application of the petitioner has been disposed of and the main interlocutory application being I.A 8546 of 2026 whereby the sale process has been challenged is still pending. 12. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 13. The impugned order dated June 24, 2026 mentions- “put up IA/8516/2026 stand disposed”- which indicates that it is only the IA (i.e. the interlocutory application) requesting for putting up the records which has been disposed of. Resultantly I.A 8456 of 2026 is yet to be considered and disposed of merits by the learned Tribunal. It is apparent that by the same order the matter has been posted for hearing on October 15, 2026. 14. In such view of the matter, the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal is requested to hear out the 4 petitioner’s application challenging the sale process (being I.A 8456 of 2026) which is pending before the learned Tribunal on merits. 15. In case the Bank has not yet filed its written objection/affidavit in opposition to the aforesaid application being I.A 8456 of 2026, the Bank shall do so within two weeks from date. 16. The petitioner shall be entitled to file affidavit-in- reply to the said objection/opposition used by the Bank within two weeks thereafter. The learned Tribunal is requested to dispose of the said interlocutory application preferably on the next date fixed. However, if for any reason the same is not possible on that day then the learned Tribunal is requested to dispose of the same at least within a month thereafter. 17. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims and objections of the respective parties and all points are left open to be urged before and decided by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. 18. WPA 18660 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) 5