Priyanka Wood Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| Order Sheet( continuation) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Case No. SA/173/20 |
22 M/s Priyanka Wood Industries Pvt. Ltd.–VsBank Baroda & Ors. |
of |
| Date of Order |
Order with signature | O ffice action with date and dated signature of parties when necessary |
| 31/07/2024 Sl. No. 21 |
Ld. Counsel, Mr. Basudeb Mukherjee, appears for the Sarfaesi applicant. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Avishek Guha and Ms. Ritika Pal, appear for the respondent bank. Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank has filed put up petition IA/1504/2024 for hearing IA/1505/2024 challenging the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 29/02/2024. The Interim order was passed on hearing of IA/358/2024. Today IA/358/2024 and IA/1505/2024 are taken together for hearing. Ld. counsel for the Sarfaesi applicant in IA/358/2024 has challenged the order of the Ld. District Magistrate, Hooghly, dated 22/01/2024 on the ground that the Ld. DM has not passed order within 30 days or 60 days as stipulated by Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act. Besides, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that Ld. DM has not recorded satisfaction on 9 points in |
the order and has directed to the Commissioner of Police to provide police assistance. Ld. Counsel for the applicant prayed in the application not to take possession of the secured property on the basis of the order of the Ld. DM dated 22/01/2024. Ld. counsel for the respondent bank on the contrary submitted that Ld. DM has expressed satisfaction in the order after going through the affidavit of the authorised officer of the bank. There is no anomaly in the order and has prayed to dismiss IA/358/2024 and to vacate the interim order dated 29.02.2024. Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank has relied authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Bright –vs- District Collector & Ors., the authority of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the matter of Jaldhaka Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. & Ors –vs- UCO Bank, the authority of the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata in the case of Aditya Birla finance Ltd. & Anr. –vsCity Oil Pvt. Ltd. & Ors and the authority of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Syndicate Bank & Anr. –vs- M/s Kaliji Engineering Works & Ors. Ld. Counsel for the Sarfaesi applicant replied that as per the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Jaldhaka Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v/s UCO Bank, Ld. DM has not recorded satisfaction in
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the District Magistrate failed to record satisfaction on specific points within the statutory time limit under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
M/s Priyanka Wood Industries Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
Bank Baroda & Ors.
Coram
Ambuja Mohan Das
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court