Dipak Kumar Giri vs Canara Bank & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1568 Cal

02.03.2023
 sayandeep
 Sl. No. 17
 Ct. No. 05




                                  WPA 3425 of 2023

                                  Dipak Kumar Giri
                                      -Versus-
                                  Canara Bank & Ors.

                    Mr. Nimish Mishra
                    Mr. Suddhastva Banerjee
                    Mr. Rittick Chowdhury
                    Mr. Biswajit Mal
                                                .....for the petitioner
                    Mr. J. Brahmachari
                    Mr. Uttam Kr. Bhattacharjee
                    Mr. Amit Gupta
                                   ......for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2

The petitioner seeks to assail an order passed by

the Presiding Officer, DRT-II on 25th January, 2023.

The ground of challenge is that DRT-II did not consider

the factual submission made by the petitioner with

regard to receiving the order of the District Magistrate

on 07.12.2022.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner had tried to make out a case

of the petitioner receiving the order of the District

Magistrate dated 3rd March, 2022 only on 7th December,

2022 but this was not given credence by the Presiding

Officer. Counsel seeks to rely on a Judgment delivered

by this Court on 24th November, 2022 in M/s Deecon

India Pvt. Ltd & ors. vs. Canara Bank & Ors..

The facts in the present matter are that the

District Magistrate passed the order under Section 14 of

the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 3rd March, 2022. The

petitioner says that the petitioner received this order on

7th December, 2022. The order of the District Magistrate

however names petitioner/borrower as one of the

persons to whom the order was sent on 3rd March, 2022

itself for necessary action. The document relied upon

by the petitioner being an application for information

under the RTI Act, 2005 made on 22nd March, 2022

does not assist the petitioner in conclusively disproving

the fact that the petitioner was one of the addressee of

the order of the District Magistrate.

The facts in M/s Deecon India Pvt. Ltd. were

different. In that case, the parties before the Court have

simply been sent to the DRT for seeking appropriate

redress. The petitioner in the present case has already

been heard by the particular DRT and an order has

been passed upon a contested hearing. The Presiding

Officer has come to a clear finding of the petitioner

being barred under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act,

2002 for being out of time. The petitioner hence cannot

plead violation of the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner may have the forum available to

him for seeking redress against the impugned order

dated 25th January, 2023; the writ Court however is not

that forum.

WPA 3425 of 2023 is accordingly disposed of in

terms of the above.

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)