Dismissed

Dr. Anupa Pal Nee Ghosh v. State Bank of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC28 Aug 2023APO/142/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition against an e-auction notice issued by the State Bank of India. The Court held that the bank acted under the self-contained SARFAESI Act and the learned Judge correctly dismissed the petition due to the availability of alternative remedy under Section 13(4).

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed holding that the writ petition was correctly dismissed due to the alternative remedy available under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

Dr. Anupa Pal Nee Ghosh Vs State Bank of India and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

ORDER

¶2

OD – 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

¶4

APO/142/2020 WITH WPO/368/2020 IA NO: GA/1/2020

¶5

DR. ANUPA PAL NEE GHOSH VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

¶6

BEFORE:

¶7

The Hon'ble JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY Date : 28^th August 2023.

¶8

Appearance: Mr. Anubhav Sinha, Advocate Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy, Advocate …. Appellant.

¶9

THE COURT:The appellant filed Writ Petition No.368 of 2020 challenging e-auction notice dated 28^th September 2020 issued by the respondent bank under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶10

According to the appellant, the respondent bank did not furnish documents as directed by Central Information Commissioner under the

¶11

¶12

Right to Information Act. The bank issued number of notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank illegally adjusted the amounts lying to the credit of the respondent to the loan due.

¶13

The Learned Judge considering the contentions of the learned counsel for appellant and the materials placed before him dismissed the writ petition holding that appellant has alternative remedy under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Learned Judge has given liberty to the appellant to approach the Tribunal for remedy. The Learned Judge also held that the Court had not decided the case on merits of the proceedings under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and it is open to the appellant to raise the same before the Tribunal.

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant raised various grounds alleging irregularities committed by the respondent bank in bringing the mortgaged property for e-auction, non-furnishing the documents and adjusting the amount belonging minor towards the loan amount of appellant’s husband, Before this Court, the learned counsel for appellant argued that the bank, instead of adjusting insurance amount, erroneously brought the property for e-auction.

¶15

These contentions are not acceptable in view of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank has initiated proceedings as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, which is a self-contained Act. The

¶16

¶17

Learned Judge has rightly considered Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and dismissed the writ petition. The Learned Judge also gave liberty to the appellant to approach the Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶18

(V.M. VELUMANI, J.)

¶19

(RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)

¶20

s. kumar

Dr. Anupa Pal Nee Ghosh v. State Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Anupa Pal Nee Ghosh v. State Bank of India 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

Madhusudan Ghosh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mozammel Haque Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ana Industrial Safety Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Rakesh Mondal Vs State Bank of India

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State Bank of India & Ors.