Disposed

Alpana Paul and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC23 Jun 2023WPA/13662/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the writ petition challenging an order under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that interference under Article 226 was not feasible as the bank had already taken possession and issued a sale certificate, noting the petitioners could approach the appropriate tribunal instead.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition along with connected applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.

Alpana Paul and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

23^rd June, 2023 (AK) 08

¶2

W.P.A 13662 of 2023 IA No: CAN 1 of 2023 CAN 2 of 2023

¶3

Smt. Alpana Paul and another Vs. State of West Bengal and others

¶4

Mr. L.M. Hajra Mr. Somesh Panja Mrs. Anuradha Jajra Mrs. Moutusi Hajra …for the petitioners.

¶5

Mr. Ranajit Chowdhury ...for the respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Suman Ghosh ...for the respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶6

The present petition has been preferred against an alleged illegal action on the part of the District Magistrate in passing an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in favour of the respondent-Bank.

¶7

Learned counsel for the Bank, at the outset, disputes the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the sale certificate has already been issued on February 16, 2023.

¶8

Not only that, possession has already been taken.

¶9

That apart, even as per Annexure-P-5 at page-45 of the writ petition, summons were served on the petitioners with regard to the proceeding under Section 19(4) of the

¶10

¶11

Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act as well as under Rule 5(2A) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶12

As such, the present writ petition ought to be dismissed.

¶13

Upon considering the submissions of parties, it is clear that the petitioners have themselves submitted that they have been ousted from the property-in-question, although valuable goods, according to the petitioners, are lying in the disputed property.

¶14

Be that as it may, apparently possession has already been taken by the respondent-Bank in pursuance of the law and a sale certificate with regard to the property has been issued as long back as on February 16, 2023, a copy whereof is handed over today in court as well as to the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners.

¶15

Moreover, it prima facie appears that summons was served on the petitioner with regard to the proceeding under Section 19(4) of the Act in due process of law.

¶16

As such, there is no scope of interference under Article 226 at the present juncture.

¶17

However, nothing in this order shall preclude the petitioners from approaching the appropriate tribunal and/or before any other forum, if available in law, with the grievances as raised in the present writ petition.

¶18

¶19

WPA 13662 of 2023, along with the connected applications, are accordingly disposed of in the light of the above observations.

¶20

There will be no order as to costs.

¶21

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶22

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Alpana Paul and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alpana Paul and Anr. v. State of West Bengal 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

Shri Dipendra Kumar Sanyal Vs the Director Abd Member Secretary Board of Governors (Iiswbm) and Ors.

Bhanwar Lal Jajodia Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Soma Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

West Bengal State Election Commission and Anr. Vs National Human Rights Commission and Ors.

Shibananda Banerjee and Ors. Vs the District Magistrate South 24 Parganas and Ors.

Sanjay Kr. Kawtia and Ors. Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.