Disposed¶20

M/S Maity Enterprise and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Feb 2026MAT/98/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall/correction of order; erroneous recording that S.A. No. 191 of 2024 dismissed - S.A. still pending; actual dismissals were I.A. Nos. 2026, 2594, 2593 of 2025; expression 'Section 17 of the Act of 2002' deleted and substituted; subsequent dismissal of Appeal Diary No. 56 of 2026 with I.A. No. 49 of 2026 on 06.02.2026 by DRAT Kolkata taken on record; M/s. Maity Enterprise v. State of West Bengal; Canara Bank; M.A.T. 98 of 2026; CAN 2 of 2026 disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Recall of the order dated 2nd February, 2026 refused; the erroneous expression therein corrected by deletion and substitution; CAN 2 of 2026 disposed of with no order as to costs; the DRAT Kolkata order dated 6th February, 2026 taken on record. ¶20

M/S Maity Enterprise and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 2nd February, 2026 disposing of M.A.T. 98 of 2026 ought to be recalled on the ground that it erroneously recorded that the borrower's S.A. No. 191 of 2024 was dismissed.

¶12

Court's answer

On the records, the borrower's S.A. No. 191 of 2024 is still pending for adjudication; what was dismissed were the applicants' applications I.A. No. 2026 of 2025, I.A. No. 2594 of 2025 and I.A. No. 2593 of 2025, not the S.A.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed deletion of the expression 'Section 17 of the Act of 2002 and the same was' occurring in the third line of paragraph 3 on the first page of the order dated 2nd February, 2026.

¶14

Key takeaways

The deleted expression was directed to be substituted with the expression 'I.A. No.2026 of 2025, I.A. No. 2594 of 2025 and I.A. No. 2593 of 2025 have been'.ratio¶16
The Court saw no reason to recall the order dated 2nd February, 2026; the recall prayer was refused.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.A.T. 98 of 2026 (with CAN 2 of 2026) - Recall application against order dated 2nd February, 2026 disposing of the appeal, founded solely on the erroneous recital in paragraph 3 that the borrower's S.A. No. 191 of 2024 stood dismissed. Held: records showed the S.A. still pending; only I.A. Nos. 2026, 2594 and 2593 of 2025 filed by the applicants had been dismissed. Court directed deletion of the expression 'Section 17 of the Act of 2002 and the same was' and substitution with 'I.A. No.2026 of 2025, I.A. No. 2594 of 2025 and I.A. No. 2593 of 2025 have been'. Recall declined. Counsel for appellants informed that the appeal (Appeal Diary No. 56 of 2026 with I.A. No. 49 of 2026) was dismissed on 6th February, 2026; the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata order of that date was taken on record. CAN 2 of 2026 disposed of; no order as to costs; parties to act on server copy downloaded from the official website.

¶1

16.02.2026. Item No. 23. Court No. 13

¶2

¶3

M.A.T. 98 of 2026 With I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2026

¶4

M/s. Maity Enterprise & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Allen Felix, Mr. Aniket Nanda.

¶6

…For the appellants.

¶7

Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, Mr. Anubrata Santra.

¶8

…For the State.

¶9

Ms. Sreemoyee Mitra.

¶10

…For the Canara Bank.

¶11

Re: CAN 2 of 2026

¶12

CAN 2 of 2026 is an application for recall and setting aside of the order dated 2^nd February, 2026 disposing of M.A.T. 98 of 2026. The sole ground for recall of the erroneous recording in the third and fourth lines of paragraph 3 that the borrower’s S.A. No. 191 of 2024 was dismissed.

¶13

It appears from the records that the said S.A. is still pending for adjudication. What has been dismissed is the application of the appellants/applicants being I.A. No. 2026 of 2025 and I.A. No. 2594 of 2025 and I.A. No. 2593 of 2025 filed by the applicants.

¶14

Having regard to the above, this Court directs deletion of the expression <Section 17 of the Act of 2002 and the same was= in the third line of paragraph 3 on the first page of the order dated 2^nd February, 2026. The said deleted expression shall be substituted

¶15

¶16

with the expression <I.A. No.2026 of 2025, I.A. No. 2594 of 2025 and I.A. No. 2593 of 2025 have been=.

¶17

This Court sees no reason to recall the order dated 2^nd February, 2026.

¶18

It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that the appeal filed by the applicants against the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata in the aforesaid IAs, being Appeal Diary No. 56 of 2026 along with I.A. No. 49 of 2026 was dismissed on 6^th February, 2026.

¶19

Let a copy of the said order dated 6^th February, 2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata file in Court today be taken on record.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, the application being CAN 2 of 2026 shall stand disposed of.

¶21

There will be no order as to costs.

¶22

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶23

( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )

¶24

( Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. )

M/S Maity Enterprise and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Maity Enterprise and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Panigrahi Vs Anima Panigrahi & Ors.

Farhad Hossain Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The State of W.B Vs Bimal Kanti Panigrahi

Rameswara Mansion Apartment Owners Association Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Jayanta Ray Vs Kolkata Municip[Al Cororation & Ors.

Jibendra Chandra Roy Substd. by Jayanta Ray & Ors. Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.