Kusum Trading Company & Anr vs Chief Manager
2025 Latest Caselaw 1421 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Kusum Trading Company & Anr vs Chief Manager on 12 March, 2025

Author: Amrita Sinha

Bench: Amrita Sinha

OD-5 & 6
                           ORDER SHEET
                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                         ORIGINAL SIDE


                         WPO No.1790 of 2023
                 KUSUM TRADING COMPANY & ANR.
                              VS
                  CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA & ANR.

                                 &

                         WPO No.1793 of 2023
                KUSUM TRADING COMPANY & ANR.
                              VS
                CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA & ANR.


            BEFORE:
            The Hon'ble JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
            Date: 12th March, 2025.

                                                                     Appearance :
                                                        Mr. Gopal Pitti (In person)
                                                             ...for the Petitioners.

                                                           Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Adv.
                                                             Ms. Papiya Dutta, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury, Adv.
                                                       ...for the Respondent Bank.

1. The petitioner no.2 appears in person virtually and submits that

the bank has illegally classified the subject loan account as non-

performing asset.

2. It appears from the submission made on behalf of the bank that

the bank initiated an original application before the Debts

Recovery Tribunal being O.A. No.513 of 2019 for recovery of the

secured amount. Judgment was passed by the Tribunal on 25th

September, 2024.

3. The petitioners submit that the summon of the original

application was not served upon the petitioners in the proper

address.

4. The judgment of the Tribunal dated 25th September, 2024 clearly

records that the defendants were served with summons. As the

defendants did not appear, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing

and heard ex-parte.

5. The Tribunal held in unequivocal terms that the bank is entitled

to recover from the defendants the total amount to the tune of

Rs.52,49,371.14/- (Rupees fifty two lakh forty nine thousand

three hundred seventy one and fourteen paise only) and future

interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on and from the due

date till the date of final realisation of the claim.

6. Thirty days' time was given to the defendants for repaying the

above due. The bank was permitted to recover its due by sale of

secured assets, if any, in the event the defendants failed to pay

within the stipulated time period.

7. It has been submitted by the learned advocate representing the

bank that as the stipulated time period for repayment of the

secured amount fixed by the Court had expired, accordingly,

proceeding has been initiated by the bank for recovery of the due

amount. A recovery certificate has already been issued by the

Tribunal.

8. I am of the opinion that at this stage it will not be proper for the

writ Court to reopen the issue of the loan account all over again.

9. The petitioners ought to initiate appropriate proceeding before the

competent forum if the petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment

passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal permitting the bank to

recover the due amount classified as non-performing asset.

10. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance of all legal formalities.

(AMRITA SINHA, J.)

nm