IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha And The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta MAT 56 of 2019 Dr. Tushar Kanti Karmakar Vs.

Shilabati Hospital Private Limited & Ors.

With MAT 118 of 2019 With I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2020 (Old CAN 4725 of 2020)

With I.A. No. CAN 3 of 2020 (Old CAN 4726 of 2020)

State Bank of India & Ors.

Vs.

Shilabati Hospital Private Limited & Ors.

With MAT 815 of 2020 Dr. Tushar Kanti Karmakar Vs.

Shilabati Hospital Private Limited & Ors.

With MAT 702 of 2020 With I.A. No. CAN 6 of 2025 Dr. Tushar Kanti Karmakar Vs.

Shilabati Hospital Private Limited & Ors.

Mr. Jaydip Kar, ld. Senior Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, Ms. Jyoti Routh.

…. For the appellant, State Bank of India.

Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, ld. Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, Mr. Purnankar Biswas.

…For the appellant in MAT 56 of 2019.

Mr. P.K. Das, ld. Sr. Advocate, Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Mr. Mukul Agarwal, Ms. Ankita Mitra, Mr. Purnankar Biswas.

…. For the Appellant in MAT 118 of 2019, MAT 815 of 2020 & MAT 702 of 2020.

Mr. Suman Kumar Dutt, ld. Senior Advocate, Ms. Monica Jaiswal, Mr. Gaurav Purkayastha, Mr. S. Choudhury ...For the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3.

Heard on : 10.09.2025 Judgment on : 16.09.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. Dr. Tushar Kanti Karmakar, purchaser of mortgaged property and Secured Creditor, State Bank of India assailed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11th December, 2018 passed by Single Bench of this High Court in W.P. No. 11203(W) of 2010 (Shilabati Hospital Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.) by filing two separate appeals being MAT No. 56 of 2019 and MAT No. 118 of 2019 respectively.

2. By the said impugned judgment and order, the Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, inter alia, on the following terms:

“.... the Bank acted without jurisdiction in selling the immovable property concerned without adhering the Rule 8(8)

of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.

Rule 8(8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is as follows:

“(8) Sale by any method other than public auction or public tender shall be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing.”

Rule 8(8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 requires the Bank, to enter into an agreement, in writing with the parties affected by the property concerned, to allow the Bank to sell such property other than by means of a public auction. In the facts of the present case, the Bank was required to take the written consent not only of the borrower, but also of the guarantor and the person claiming title over the property to sell such property by a method other than public auction. The Bank did not do so. Therefore, the Bank did not adhere to the provisions of the Rule 8(8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The auction of the Bank is therefore, wholly without jurisdiction.

The Bank is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Any action of such authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India if found to be without jurisdiction can be assailed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition of 2010 and is pending for a considerable period of time. It would be improper to relegate the parties to avail of the remedies under the Act of

2002 at this stage of the proceeding and this late.”

3. The Appellant, Dr. Tushar Kanti Karmakar further assailed two other impugned interlocutory orders dated 30.09.2020 and 02.12.2020 passed by the Single Bench of this High Court in another writ petition filed by the writ petitioners being W.P.A No. 6046 of 2020 (Shilabati Hospital Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.) by way of filing two separate appeals being MAT No. 702 of 2020 and MAT No. 815 of 2020 respectively.

4. By the first impugned order dated 30.09.2020, the Single Judge passed interim order, inter alia, as under:

“The private respondent