Disposed

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

Calcutta HC23 Jun 2023WPA/14219/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held the writ petition premature as no declaration of willful defaulter had been made yet. The Bank was directed to decide on video conferencing and conduct the hearing prior notice to the petitioners. Case disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of without order as to costs. Bank directed to conduct hearing with prior notice.

Sanjay Kr. Kawtia and Ors. Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

23^rd June, 2023 (AK) 12

¶2

W.P.A 14219 of 2023

¶3

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Kawtia and others Vs. Karnataka Bank Limited

¶4

Mr. M.S. Tiwari Mr. Shambu Mahato Ms. Shweta Poddar

¶5

…for the petitioners.

¶6

Mr. Anirban Pramanick ...for the respondent-Bank.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were unable to repay a loan, for which a proceeding under the SARFAESI Act was initiated, which is being attended by the petitioners.

¶8

That apart, the respondent-Bank is seeking to take possession from the petitioner as well as to declare the petitioners to be willful defaulters.

¶9

It is contended that the petitioners have sought for a personal hearing, without giving which the respondentBank is intending to declare the petitioners as willful defaulters under the corresponding Master Circular of the Reserve Bank of India.

¶10

Learned counsel for the Bank contends that the writ petition is not maintainable and is premature.

¶11

¶12

Apart from the fact that the respondent-Bank is not a Government or Nationalized Bank, the other aspect remains that the petitioners do not have any cause of action as yet, since no declaration of willful defaulter has been taken by the Bank.

¶13

The petitioners, it is contended, seek to avoid appearance in Karnataka, where the head office of the respondent-Bank is located, for which the respondentBank is even considering the possibility of giving a hearing by way of video conference.

¶14

Be that as it may, the Bank is justified in pointing out that the writ petition, at this juncture, is premature, since only a show cause notice has been given to the petitioners by the Bank for giving a hearing on the declaration of willful defaulter.

¶15

Such proposed declaration has not yet furnished any cause of action to the petitioners.

¶16

However, since the Bank has taken a rational view in considering video conferencing as an alternative mode of hearing, the Bank shall reach a conclusion in that regard as to whether the petitioners should be given a personal hearing or an online hearing for the purpose of the proposed declaration of willful defaulter.

¶17

Such hearing shall positively be given to the petitioners by prior notice by the respondent-Bank in writing.

¶18

¶19

There is no further scope of any interference as such, at least at this stage.

¶20

Accordingly, WPA 14219 of 2023 is disposed of without any order as to costs in the light of the above observations.

¶21

Since no affidavits have been invited, it is deemed that none of the allegations made in the writ petition are admitted by the respondent.

¶22

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

¶23

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

Alpana Paul and Anr. 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.