IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ashim Kumar Banerjee & Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, JJ.
AKHIL BANDHU SAHA
VS.
THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
F.M.A. 998 OF 2012 With CAN 5283 OF 2012 And F.M.A. 903 OF 2013 With CAN 5616 OF 2012
Decided on : April 18, 2013
SARFAESI ACT - SECTION 13 (2) - SECTION 17 - WRIT PETITION - RES JUDICATA - ENQUIRY BY RESERVE BANK OF INDIA - The court held that the writ petition was not barred by the principles of res judicata and directed an enquiry by an officer not less than the rank of Deputy General Manager of Reserve Bank of India to enquire into the entire matter and submit his report before the appropriate Authority of Reserve Bank of India.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner challenged the steps taken by the Bank Authorities under the SARFAESI Act for non-repayment of loans. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking release of non-hypothecated and non-mortgaged assets, permission to operate the locker, and an account of the loan amount after adjusting the matured value of fixed deposits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Bank Authorities had issued different letters on different occasions, claiming different amounts, and that there was no proper valuation of the mortgaged properties before the auction. The court also noted that the petitioner had not been given a detailed calculation of the amount due after adjustment of the fixed deposits.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was barred by the principles of res judicata. Whether the Bank Authorities had acted illegally and unfairly in selling the mortgaged properties. Whether an enquiry was necessary to determine the exact amount of liability fallen upon the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the earlier writ petitions were moved on different set of facts and that the petitioner had come up with subsequent events in the instant proceedings. The court also held that the Bank Authorities had not disclosed the exact amount of liability which had fallen upon the petitioner and that there was no proper valuation of the mortgaged properties before the auction. Therefore, the court directed an enquiry by an officer not less than the rank of Deputy General Manager of Reserve Bank of India to enquire into the entire matter.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal as well as the writ petition. The court directed the Chief General Manager of Reserve Bank of India to appoint an officer not less than the Deputy General Manager to enquire into the entire matter and submit his report before the appropriate Authority of Reserve Bank of India.
ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J. : The subject matter of appeal relates to an order of the learned Single Judge refusing to entertain the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner with a prayer to release the movable and immovable assets not hypothecated and mortgaged to the respondent bank, to allow him to operate the locker with the Bank and give appropriate accounts of loan amount Rs.9,75,152.37 after adjustment of matured value of fixed deposits Rs.4,40,00 and for releasing all security assets held since 11th December, 2003 on complete realization of the loan of Rs.9,75,152.37. The appeal arose against the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2012.
2. The writ petitioner was carrying on business in the name of East India Chemical Products and East India Trading Company. State Bank of India Ektiashal Branch sanctioned credit facilities in favour of East India Trading Company to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- against STDR value Rs.50,900/- and Rs.75,000/- as collateral security with equitable mortgage property of Hyderpara in the District of Jalpaiguri. Similarly, credit facilities were also sanctioned by the Bank Authorities in favour of East India Chemical Products i.e. cash credit to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, clean medium loan to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/- and medium term loan for Rs.95,000/- against STDR of Rs.1,00,000/- as collateral security and by creating equitable mortgage in respect of 30 cottah of land at Dabgram in the District of Jalpaiguri. A loan of Rs.40,000/- was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for purchasing a motor cycle. The petitioner failed to repay the aforementioned loans and the Bank issued a notice upon the petitioner under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act with regard to outstanding dues in the name of East India Trading Company and took over the possession of mortgaged property at Hyderpara on 13th December, 2003. Writ petition being W.P. No.1384 (W) 2004 was moved, inter alia, challenging the steps taken by the Bank Authorities under the SARFAESI Act. The writ petition was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 21st September, 2004 giving opportunity to petitioner to apply before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and an order was also passed directing the Bank to return the house hold articles of the petitioner lying with the Bank. Contempt application was filed for non-compliance of the order. Special Officer was appointed and ultimately non-mortgage goods were returned by the Bank to the petitioner. Thereafter contempt application was filed which was withdrawn with leave to file afresh. Pursuant to leave granted, another contempt application was filed and this Hon’ble Court directed Inspector General of Police (N) to submit a detail report as regards the writ petitioner’s complaint. Chief Manager State Bank of India was also directed look into the matter and make an enquiry and file a report before this Court. Reports were filed stating that the goods have already been returned in terms of the order and accordingly third contempt application was also dismissed. It was clarified in the order that the said order would not stand in the way of the petitioner to take any further step before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
3. Bank Authority issued sale notice in respect of secured assets in question and the said notice was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.3624 (W) of 2007 before this Court the said writ petition was again dismissed on 4th July, 2008 on the ground that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. This order was challenged before the Hon’ble Division Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench also dismissed the appeal on 25th September, 2008 with a direction that the petitioner will be liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law. This is the third writ application moved by the writ petitioner, inter alia, praying for return of non-mortgage goods, permission to operate his locker, settlement of his accounts and ot
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.