IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

MAT/1465/2025

VIJAY PRAKASH BOHRA

VS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IA NO: CAN/1/2025

For the Appellant : Mr. Rishad Medosa, Advocate

Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Advocate

Ms. Deepti Priya, Advocate

Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocate

For the SBI : Mr. Debahis Saha, Advocate

For the respondent : Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Advocate

No. 5-7

For the respondent : Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Advocate

No. 6 & 9 Ms. Arushi Rathore, Advocate

Mr. Pritam Roy, Advocate

Heard & Judgment on: September 9, 2025

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Appeal is directed against an order dated August 18, 2025 passed

in WPA 11575 of 2025.

2. Appeal is at the behest of private respondent in the writ petition.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the

appellant purchased an immovable property in a proceeding under

the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. He submits that actual physical possession of such immovable property was not made over to the appellant by the Bank.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 on February 18, 2016. Such application was dismissed by the jurisdictional District Magistrate by an order dated March 27, 2025.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, Bank filed a writ petition being WPA 11575 of 2025 praying for setting aside of the order dated March 27, 2025 and seeking a direction upon the jurisdictional District Magistrate to issue an order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Learned Single Judge erred in not issuing such direction on the jurisdictional District Magistrate.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon (2018)

15 SCC 99 [ITC Limited vs. Blue Coast Hotels Limited & Ors.] and submits that, a secured creditor can apply under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 to take actual physical possession of the secured asset subsequent to the sale of the same to a purchaser. Therefore, both the jurisdictional District Magistrate as well as the learned Single Judge erred in not directing remedies under Section

14 of the Act of 2002.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, there is an order of injunction passed by commercial Court with regard to the concerned immovable property restraining the private respondents from creating third party rights in respect of such immovable property.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, more than the order of injunction, there is an issue with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. He submits that, appellant is a purchaser of an immovable property and cannot move Court for the purpose of obtaining an order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. He assails the locus of the appellant before us to file and move the appeal. He submits that, the ratio laid down in ITC Limited (supra) assists the private respondents in this regard.

9. State Bank of India (SBI) invoked the provisions of Section 14 the Act of 2002 in respect of security interest covering the credit facilities extended by it to the borrowers and guarantors including the respondent Nos. 4 and 9 herein. The immovable property concerned was a security interest of SBI in respect of such credit facilities.

10. SBI put up the secured asset for sale under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Appellant before us purchased such immovable property for valuable consideration. Appellant is yet to receive actual physical possession of the immovable property since, SBI is yet to obtain actual physical possession of such immovable property concerned.

11. Apparently, SBI sold the immovable property without obtaining actual physical possession thereof. Prior to the sale of the immovable property to the appellant, SBI applied before the jurisdictional District Magistrate for assistance unde