Dismissed¶10

Bikash Paria v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Apr 2025WPA/27073/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act 2002 Section 13(4) possession notice; Rule 8 Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002; Section 17 SARFAESI alternative remedy Debts Recovery Tribunal; Article 226 Constitution writ against secured creditor enforcement measures not entertainable; WPA 27073 of 2024; Bikash Paria v. State of West Bengal; dismissed 08.04.2025; Om Narayan Rai, J.; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice annexed at page 21 of the writ petition is not a notice for sale through auction but a possession notice issued under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 read with Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. ¶5

Bikash Paria Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice published on October 05, 2024 by respondent no.4, sought to be set aside as an 'Auction Notice', is an auction-sale notice or a possession notice issued under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 read with Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned notice is a possession notice and not an auction notice, the writ petition is wholly misconceived.

¶6

Key takeaways

Measures taken by a secured creditor for enforcement of its security interest under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Rules of 2002 should ordinarily not be allowed to be assailed by writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as persons aggrieved have an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPA 27073 of 2024 (Bikash Paria v. The State of West Bengal & Others), decided 08.04.2025 by Om Narayan Rai, J.: writ petition seeking setting aside of a notice dated October 05, 2024 published by respondent no.4, described by the petitioner as an 'Auction Notice', dismissed. The Court held the notice to be a possession notice issued under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 read with Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, rendering the petition wholly misconceived. Further holding: enforcement measures of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Rules of 2002 should ordinarily not be assailed by writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, an efficacious alternative remedy lying before the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Petition not entertained; dismissed; no costs.

Bikash Paria v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikash Paria v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bibhash Dhar Vs Payaswini Dey

Koushik Das Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Ors.

Ankita Majumder Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Other Backward Classes,South Eastern Railway,Kolkata and Others Vs South Eastern Railway and Others

Aloke Kumar Jana Vs the District Magistrate South 24 Paraganas and Ors.

Sima Rani Das Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited and Ors.