Dismissed¶16

Imtiaz Middya v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 Mar 2026WPA/4078/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition against CJM order in SARFAESI matter; alternative efficacious statutory remedy; section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah; order dated 18 December, 2025; secured property enforced by respondent NBFC; petitioner claims lawful ownership since purchase in 2015 and alleges fraudulent, clandestine creation of security; petition dismissed as ex facie not maintainable; merits and all questions left open to the Tribunal; liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to take necessary steps in accordance with law, if so advised. ¶16

Imtiaz Middya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

D/L.11. March 06, 2026. KAUSHIK

¶2

WPA No. 4078 of 2026

¶3

Imtiaz Middya

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Golam Mostafa Mr. Subir Sabud Mr. Samirul Sardar … for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra Mr. Abhishek Dey Mr. Suprovat Banerjee … for the respondent no. 5

¶8

Mr. Sambuddha Dutta Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty … for the State

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is directed against an order dated 18 December, 2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in a proceeding initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI).

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the secured property being enforced by the respondent NBFC does not belong to the petitioner and has been fraudulently and clandestinely given as security to the petitioner bank.

¶11

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the

¶12

¶13

property morefully enumerated in paragraph 2 of the petition and had purchased the same way back in 2015. In this background, there is no question of the petitioner directly or indirectly having created a mortgage in respect of the above property with the respondent NBFC.

¶14

On behalf of respondent NBFC, it is submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. In any event, the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy under section 17 of the Act of 2002.

¶15

In view of the alternative efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner under SARFAESI, the instant writ petition is ex facie not maintainable.

¶16

WPA 4078 of 2026 stands dismissed.

¶17

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take necessary steps in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶18

It is made clear that there has been no expression on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be decided by the Tribunal strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)

Imtiaz Middya v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiaz Middya 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

Purulia Metal Casting Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Damodar Valley Corporaion and Ors.

Sukur Mallik Vs West Bengal State Electrictiy Distribution Company Limited (Wbsedcl) and Ors.

Sujit Kumar Paul and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bijan Hazra and Anr. Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.

Bharati Mondal and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abiomed Inc. Vs the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr.