Suchandra Seal (Rakhit) vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 77 Cal

AD. 16.
January 7, 2021.
 MNS.
                                   W. P. A. 9965 of 2020
                                  (Via video conference)

                                  Suchandra Seal (Rakhit)
                                           Vs.
                            The State of West Bengal and others

                        Mr.Bairduya Ghosal,
                        Ms. Sangeeta Roy

                                      ... for the petitioner.

                        Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
                        Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas

                               ...for the respondent-authorities.

Mr. Sailesh Mishra

...for the respondent no. 4.

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be

taken on record.

The petitioner alleges that, in the pretext of

recovering a loan taken by the petitioner's husband

(since deceased), the respondent no. 4-bank is

trying to dispossess the petitioner from her

matrimonial home.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on

the judgment reported at (2007) 2 SCC 711

(Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur &

Ors.) to substantiate the contention that the practice

of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen of the

bank, has been deprecated by the Supreme Court

as well.

Learned counsel places reliance on the

complaint of the petitioner, before the police, dated

November 10, 2020, annexed at page- 12 of the writ

petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-authorities submits a report in the from

of instructions, which seeks to indicate that the

petitioner is trying to avoid repayment of loan and

connected recovery proceedings under the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 by approaching the police authorities and

thereafter this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no. 4- bank submits that, subsequent to

demise of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner

herself approached the bank with an one time

settlement (OTS) proposal, which was accepted by

the bank and took the shape of an one time

settlement scheme. However, subsequently the

petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the

OTS, thereby exposing herself to appropriate action

for recovery by the bank.

Be that as it may, it is not for the writ court to

comment on the merits of the bank's claim against

the petitioner. In the event the petitioner has any

grievance on that score the petitioner has to

approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for

appropriate relief.

It would suffice if the bank does not take

steps de hors the law for evicting the petitioner in

the garb of recovery of loan.

Accordingly, W. P. A. 9965 of 2020 is

disposed of with the observation that the Indian

Bank, Salt Lake Branch, shall not disturb the

possession of the petitioner in respect of the

disputed premises, except in accordance with law.

It is made clear, however, that the petitioner

will be at liberty to recover the property and/or other

assets in manners sanctioned by law. The merits of

the respective contentions of the petitioner and the

bank regarding the money claim are not gone into.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order,

if applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)