SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J., HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
Mrs. Susmi Dasgupta - Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda & ors. - Respondents
MAT 2119 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2024
Decided on : 22-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. Sambuddha Dutta, Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay, Ms. Lipika Chatterjee, Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Ms. Sukanya Datta, Mr. N. Srinivas, Mr. Sayantan Kar

The court affirmed that aggrieved parties under the SARFAESI Act must approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for relief, emphasizing the importance of alternative remedies.

Headnote:(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 - Intra-Court appeal against order quashing possession of property - Appellant claimed not to be borrower or guarantor, asserting property not mortgaged - Court held that aggrieved parties can approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) - Appellant's claims regarding property ownership and incorrect particulars in application under Section 14 were not substantiated - Appeal dismissed, order under Section 14 affirmed. (Paras 1, 2, 10, 12)

(B) Jurisdiction of Writ Court - High Courts should exercise discretion with caution when alternative remedies exist under statutory provisions - Writ petitions challenging orders under SARFAESI Act are maintainable only in exceptional circumstances. (Paras 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, claiming the property taken by the bank was not mortgaged to secure any loan. The bank contended that the property was indeed a secured asset.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant had not effectively challenged the order under Section 13(4) and that the property remained a secured asset.

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant was aggrieved under the SARFAESI Act and whether the property was a secured asset.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant must seek relief from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as the property was correctly identified as a secured asset and the writ petition was not maintainable.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)

1. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed in WPA 27490 of 2024 filed by the appellant. The appellant filed the said writ petition praying for issuance of certiorari to quash the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 06.01.2024 exercising power under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the SARFAESI Act) and in nine-point affidavit filed by the respondent bank under Section 14 of the said Act.

2. The learned Single Judge upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case took note of the submissions of the appellant that she is neither the borrower nor the guarantor and that no money is due and payable by the appellant/writ petitioner and the asset of the property has already been taken over by the respondent bank and, therefore, remedy was sought for. The learned writ court noted that according to Section 17(1) of the Act any person aggrieved by any measures referred to in Section 13(4) of the Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under the Chapter may make an application alongwith such fee as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within a period of 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken. Further, the learned Single Judge observed that there are several judicial pronouncements that “any person” mentioned in Sub-section 1 of Section 17 of the Act brings within its fold not only the borrower or the guarantor but also any other person who may be affected by any action under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the said Act. Taking note of the grievance expressed by the appellant/writ petitioner that she is aggrieved by the action taken under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, it will be open to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for relief and, in the event, an application is filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the same to be adjudicated by the Tribunal in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has elaborately taken us through the factual averments including the loan documents which were filed by the respondent bank before the Tribunal to demonstrate that the property which has now been taken possession pursuant to the order passed under Section 14 of the Act was never mortgaged to the bank to secure a loan availed by a partnership firm in which the husband of the appellant/writ petitioner was a partner. In this regard, elaborate reference was made to the sanction letter issued by the respondent bank in favour of the partnership firm and other documents concerning the housing loan availed by the appellant as a principal borrower and her husband as a co-borrower in respect of the flat which according to the appellant was exclusively owned by her and the property stood in the name of the appellant and her husband was only a co-borrower. Therefore, it is submitted that there were several facilities extended out of which the facilities extended in WCDL-6 pertain to the flat on which a housing loan was availed by the appellant and that facility viz. WCDL-6 had already been closed as the amount payable was repaid to the respondent bank. It is submitted that in respect of the facilities extended by the bank in WCDL-7 for which action has been taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act the flat owned by the appellant was not the subject matter of mortgage. The other documents were also referred to show that the flat owned by the appellant which was taken possession by the respondent bank was not a secured asset. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondent bank is enjoined upon a duty to disclose correct particulars/information in an application filed under Section 14 of the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top