ORDER :- This Court has heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties. Having heard the said Learned Advocates, it appears that the facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows :-

2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioners are in the business of processing tea leaves and they own a Tea Garden in Assam and that the petitioners have been compelled to file the writ petition because the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities, have refused to release the security that was pledged for securing the loan and/or advance made to the petitioner No. 1 by the said respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities through its branch office at Jalpaiguri. The petitioners have stated in their writ petition that the petitioner No. 2 being one of the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 has common interest in two other companies namely, SRK Tea Processing Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SRK) and Gurjangjhora Tea and Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GTI) and that the petitioner No. 1 and SRK and GTI are run and managed by the petitioner No. 2 and the said three companies are known in the market as Kalyani Group. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the said respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities advanced loan on the security of assets to the said three companies and the loan accounts are independent and separate and that the mortgage of immovable properties by way of security, obtained by the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities from the said three companies, are also independent and separate. The petitioners have further alleged that there was no common guarantee or mortgage so far as the petitioner No. 1 and the other two companies are concerned and there was no cross-guarantee also. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 and SRK and GTI have been maintaining their accounts and running their business separately and independently though these are run and managed by the Kalyani Group. The petitioners have alleged that the financial services that was extended by the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities was never beneficial to the petitioner No. 1's interest particularly owing to untimely sanction of loan at a higher rate of interest. In short, the petitioners have been suffering huge loss of profit owing to the alleged deficiency in service and/or negligence on the part of the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities. The petitioners have alleged that in spite of several representations being made to the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities, the said respondents did not look into the grievance of the petitioners, and the petitioners have approached the respondent-UCO Bank-authorities and requested the respondent-UCO Bank of India-authorities to extend finance by taking over the accounts lying with the Jalpaiguri Branch of the said Central Bank of India respondents. The respondent-UCO Bank authorities sanctioned the credit facility in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners made a written representation dated 20-3-2007 to the respondent No. 1 to release the security of assets being the lease deeds of Bargara Tea Estate and to provide the no objection certificate (in short, NOC) to the Authorised Officer of M/s. UCO-Bank, Jalpaiguri subject to clearing of the petitioner No. 1's debit balance lying with the respondent No. 6 by Banker's Cheque of UCO-Bank, Jalpaiguri. The petitioners, in the said letter dated 20-3-2007, requested the respondent No. 6 to provide the details of the dues in respect of the petitioner No. 1's loan accounts. It appears that several correspondences were exchanged between the petitioners and the Central Bank of India-authorities in this regard. It appears that a letter dated 8-5-2007 was written by the respondent No. 6 to the respondent No. 10 acknowledging receipt of a certain letter and a pay order for a certain amount from the respondent No. 10 for depositing in various advance accounts of the petitioner No. 1. It further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document