Bipad Taran Chowdhury vs Uco Bank & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2294 Cal

22.04.2022
 Court No.32
  rpan/ 36
                                MAT 1547 of 2016
                                       +
               IA No.: CAN 1 of 2016 [ Old No.: CAN 8631 of 2016]
                                        +
                       CAN 2 of 2016 [ Old No.: CAN 8633 of 2016]
                             Bipad Taran Chowdhury
                                    - Versus -
                                UCO Bank & Ors.

                     Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee,
                     Mr. Arghya Kamal Das
                                   ... for the Appellant.
                     Mr. Sudeep Pal Choudhury
                                    ... for the Bank-Respondents.

The present appeal has been preferred against

an order dated 6th May, 2016 passed in W. P. No.6780

(W) of 2016.

As we have invited Mr. Mukherjee, learned

advocate appearing for the appellant to argue on

merits of the appeal, the delay in preferring the appeal

is condoned and the application for condonation of

delay, being CAN 8633 of 2016 is allowed.

It is the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that the

learned Single Judge, upon arriving at a conclusion

that the auction notice was absolutely illegal, refused

to cancel and set aside the same.

He further submits that the learned Single Judge

ought not to have granted liberty to the bank to

proceed in accordance with law against the

petitioner/appellant for realization of its dues.

Mr. Pal Choudhury, learned advocate appearing

for the bank-respondents submits that there is no

infirmity in the order dated 6th May, 2016 and the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the learned advocates appearing

for the respective parties.

A composite reading of the impugned order dated

6th May, 2016 reveals that as the auction notice was

published with the writ petitioner's photograph and as

such act was unsustainable in view of the judgment

delivered in the case of Ujjal Kumar Das & Anr. Vs.

State Bank of India & Others, reported in (2013) 2

Cal. LT 639(HC), the publication of such photograph in

the auction notice was held to be illegal and the bank

was asked to publish notices tendering public apology.

It was also observed thereafter that the order passed

would not preclude the bank from proceeding in

accordance with law against the writ

petitioner/appellant for realization of its dues.

We do not find any infirmity in such decision.

The order dated 6th May, 2016 is a reasoned one and

no interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeal

and the application for stay, being CAN 8631 of 2016

are dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon

compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Sugato Majumdar, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)