2022:CHC-OS:8299
OCD-5
In the High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side
IA NO. GA-COM/14/2026
[OLD NO. CS/263/2016]
In CS-COM/645/2024
SHREEJE SAREES PVT LTD
Vs
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Date : March 18, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Gopal Pitti (In person)
...for the plaintiff
Ms. Deblina Lahiri, Adv.
Mr. Debashis Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Mrinmoy Chatterjee, Adv.
...for the defendant bank
The Court : The plaintiff is represented by one Sri. Gopal Pitti,
claiming himself to be a director of the plaintiff company.
This is an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff in a pending
suit with the following prayers:
"a) Ad interim order be passed restraining the
defendant bank, its officers, agents and assigns be
restrained from proceeding with or giving effect to
the proposed e-auction / sale of the properties in e
auction notice dated 28.01.2026 & 03.02.2026 or
issue of any further e auction notice till further
order of this Hon'ble Bench.
b) Ad interim order be passed restraining the
defendant bank, its officers, agents and assigns be
restrained from creating any third party interest
upon any of the properties of the petitioner or
director of the petitioner.
2
2022:CHC-OS:8299
c) An permanent injunction restraining sale of
properties belongs to the petitioner or their director
till further order of this Hon'ble Bench.
d) And pass such other order/orders as your honor
may deem fit and proper."
The prayers from the petition show that the plaintiff has claimed
injunction on E-Auction notices dated January 28, 2026 and February 3,
2026 at pages 195 and 198 to the application.
On perusal of the said two notices, it appears that they were issued
under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short
"SARFAESI Act") read with Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short "Security Interest Rules").
From the said two notices, it appears that the claim of the bank is for
a sum of Rs.10,71,00,000/- as against the plaintiff.
Mr. Gopal Pitti, representing the plaintiff has referred to a copy of the
plaint and submitted that the instant suit has been filed against the bank
on the ground of fraud, allegedly committed by the bank while proceeding
against the alleged security interest, which are not secured interest with the
bank. He submits that may be one room of a particular premise has been
created as a security for obtaining loan, whereas the bank has proceeded
against the entire property. He further submits that the properties are
wrongly described and not covered within the Indenture of title of the
respective properties mentioned by the bank.
He submits that the law is well settled that if borrower alleges fraud
against the bank while taking steps under the SARFAESI Act, Civil suit is
IA NO. GA-COM/14/2026
[OLD NO CS/263/2016]
In CS-COM/645/2024
A.R., J.
2022:CHC-OS:8299
maintainable. He has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court In the matter of: Central Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prabha
Jain & Ors. reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 121.
Ms. Deblina Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for the bank submits
that on the self-same properties, the petitioner has already filed SA 115 of
2018 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - (I), Kolkata (For short "DRT-I")
wherein reliefs have been claimed against the steps taken by the bank under
the SARFAESI Act. The application has been filed under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act. She has further referred to an interlocutory application
being IA No. 2289 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff in the said pending
SARFAESI application before DRT-I wherein prayer has been made for
restoration of possession of the plaintiff being the applicant therein in
respect of the self-same properties.
She has specifically taken the point of maintainability of the suit and
this application as Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act operates as a statutory
bar in maintaining the instant suit and the connected application.
Ms. Deblina Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for the bank submits
that properties being 7A, Bentick Street, Kolkata-700001 and 91, Dum
Dum Park have already been sold and sale certificate has already been
issued in favour of the auction purchaser.
Mr. Pitti, per contra, in reply submits that fraud has been detected by
the plaintiff after 2022 when Section 17 application was filed. After receiving
the replies under the Right to Information Act, the plaintiff has detected the
fraud.
IA NO. GA-COM/14/2026
[OLD NO CS/263/2016]
In CS-COM/645/2024
A.R., J.
2022:CHC-OS:8299
He prays for an immediate injunction.
After considering the rival contention of the parties and upon perusal
of the materials on record, prima facie, it appears to this Court that the
prayers made in the instant application relate to the properties against
which the bank has proceeded under SARFAESI Act. Comparing the
description of the properties mentioned in the interlocutory application
being IA 2289 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff in SA 115 of 2018, as the copy
has been produced before this Court, with the sale notices dated January
28, 2026 and February 3, 2026 at pages 195 and 198 to the instant
application, it appears that premises No. 113, Park Street, Kolkata (at
page 199 to the application), 7A, Bentick Street, Kolkata-700001 (at
page 196 to the application) and 91, Dum Dum Park (at page 196 to the
application) are the common properties on which reliefs have already been
claimed before the DRT in the pending Section 17 application.
The records further show that the original suit was filed in 2016
before the Non-Commercial Division which was then transferred to
Commercial Division and registered as the suit of 2024. Therefore, the
initiation of the instant suit is much prior to 2018 when Section 17
application was filed before the DRT-I.
The instant suit claims compensation and damages.
Considering the prayer for injunction made in the instant application,
prima facie, this Court is of the view that if those sale notices are interfered
with at this stage, the same may be in violation of the statutory bar imposed
IA NO. GA-COM/14/2026
[OLD NO CS/263/2016]
In CS-COM/645/2024
A.R., J.
2022:CHC-OS:8299
under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Inasmuch as, Section 17
proceeding is still pending before DRT-I, with the self same reliefs.
In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons, there shall be no
interim order in this application.
Subject to point of maintainability of the suit and the instant
application being kept open, the respondents shall file affidavit in opposition
on or before May 20, 2026.
Affidavit in reply, if any, thereto shall be filed by June 17, 2026.
The matter shall appear under the heading "Adjourned Motion" in
the monthly list of July, 2026.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
Sbghosh
IA NO. GA-COM/14/2026
[OLD NO CS/263/2016]
In CS-COM/645/2024
A.R., J.
