Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debabrata Paul & Anr vs Bank Of Baroda on 28 October, 2024
28
28.10.2024
Ct. No. 3 (VB)
ss/PP
C.O. 3826 of 2024
Debabrata Paul & anr.
Vs.
Bank of Baroda
Mr. Partha Pratim Ray
Mr. Lalratan Mondal
Ms. Puja Mondal
.... For the petitioners
This is an application wherein the petitioners have
challenged the order dated 4th October, 2024 passed by
the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Kolkata in
adjudication of IA No.3882 of 2024 in connection with SA
No.668 of 2022.
Petitioners submitted that it transpires from the order
dated 31st March, 2024 passed by the District Magistrate,
Barasat, North 24-Parganas that while passing the order
he has not recorded the satisfaction in respect of Section
14(b)(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 regarding the total
claim of the respondent at the time of filing of the
application. He further submitted that the order dated
31st March, 2024 goes to record in serial no.11 that there
is no case pending before any court of law filed by the
borrower as per affidavit filed by the bank before the
learned District Magistrate, Barasat, North 24-Parganas.
In fact, the petitioner has filed a title suit against the
respondent-Bank being Title Suit No.1693 of 2022 which
is still pending for adjudication and the learned Judge,
Bench XII, City Civil Court at Calcutta vide its order
dated 11th August, 2022 passed an order of ad interim
injunction restraining the respondent-Bank from
disturbing possession of the applicant.
It is further submitted that ad interim order extended
time to time and the respondent-Bank also appeared in
the said suit and made a prayer for rejection of the plaint.
Mr. Roy, leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner accordingly submits that the respondent-Bank
was all along aware about the pendency of the said suit
as well as the ad interim order of injunction, which is still
operative.
Mr. Roy in this context relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Jaldhaka Cold Storage Pvt.
Ltd. and Others Vs. UCO Bank, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Cal 262 and also a judgement of the Division
Bench of this High Court in the case of Tapasi Routh
Nee Sinha Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and Others,
reported in 2022 O Supreme (Cal) 1524.
Petitioners are directed to serve a copy of the
application upon the opposite party intimating the next
date of hearing and file affidavit of service on the
returnable date.
Let the matter appear four weeks after reopening of
the Court after Puja vacation before the regular Bench
subject to convenience of the Bench.
Upon hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners, let the order impugned dated 4th October,
2024 and the order dated 31st March, 2024 passed by the
learned District Magistrate, Barasat, North 24-Parganas
be stayed for a period of four weeks after reopening of the
Court after Puja vacation or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
1.
(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
