Disposed

Omega Transmission Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Dec 2021MAT/1302/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy availability under the SARFAESI Act. The High Court held the appellant must pursue the pending appeal under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal instead of approaching the Court in parallel. Liberty to prosecute the remedy before the DRT was granted.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to allow prosecution of alternative remedy before the DRT was allowed; appeal disposed of.

Omega Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Vs Canara Bank and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

12 ss/jks 08.12.2021

¶2

MAT 1302 of 2021 With CAN 1 of 2021 Omega Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors. (Through Video Conference)

¶3

Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Prantik Garai Mr. Radhey Shyam Tiwari Ms. Komal Toshniwal

¶4

… … for the appellant

¶5

Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee Mr. Dipankar Das Ms. Sanjana Nandi

¶6

… … for the respondent no. 1

¶7

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.12.2021 whereby WPA 9786 of 2021 has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.

¶8

A perusal of the petition reveals that the appellant had challenged the order dated 29^th October, 2018 passed by the District Magistrate under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶9

Against such an order the appellant has remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Act. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that SA No. 25 of 2018 at the instance of the appellant is already pending before the DRT and the appellant by filing the application dated 22^nd December, 2020 has already challenged the order of the District Magistrate dated 29^th October, 2018.

¶10

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant should prosecute the alternate remedy

¶11

¶12

available before the DRT and for which the appellant has already filed an appropriate application. He cannot be permitted to avail the parallel remedy against the same order before this Court also.

¶13

At this stage learned counsel for the appellant has sought liberty to prosecute his remedy before the DRT.

¶14

Prayer is allowed. The appeal is disposed of granting liberty to the appellant to prosecute the remedy before DRT.

¶15

It is made clear that DRT will examine the issue raised by the appellant on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made by the learned Single Judge.

¶16

The appeal being MAT 1302 of 2021 along with CAN 1 of 2021 are accordingly disposed of.

¶17

(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)

¶18

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)

Omega Transmission Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omega Transmission Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anupam Sirkar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sabyasachi Mondal Adn Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Md. Sanuar Hossain Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sourav Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Renuka Bibi Vs Amal Kumar Mondal and Ors.

Satyendra Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.