Shree Jagannath Iron Foundry Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs The District Magistrate on 26 August, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Shree Jagannath Iron Foundry Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs The District Magistrate on 26 August, 2016

Bench: Joymalya Bagchi

                                                    1

26.08.16
 Sl. No.9
  akd

                                        W.P. 16747(W) of 2016

        [Shree Jagannath Iron Foundry Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. -Vs- The District Magistrate, Howrah & Ors.]


                   Mr. Joy Saha .. Sr. Adv.
                   Mr. Anil Kumar Chowdhury,
                   Mr. C. N. Dutta,
                   Mr. Plaban Basu
                                        ... ... for the petitioners


                   Ms. Aparajita Rao,
                   Mr. V. Raja Rao
                                        ... ... for the respondent

nos.2 & 3 Affidavit-of-service filed today in Court be kept with the record. Mr. Joy Saha, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 has a prior tenancy in the secured asset in respect of which order has been passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act behind his back in favour of the respondent-Bank.

Ms. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Bank disputes the submissions of Mr. Saha and contends that the respondent-Bank was not aware of the aforesaid tenancy and the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was passed by the District Magistrate lawfully.

Without going into the legality of the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act passed by the District Magistrate, I am of the opinion that in view of the law declared in Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank of India reported in (2016) 3 SCC 762, it is the duty of the 2 District Magistrate to consider the application of a prior tenant in the secured asset in accordance with law.

Under such circumstances, I direct that the application filed by the petitioner no.1 on 14th July, 2016 shall be considered in accordance with law by the District Magistrate and shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within 60 days from the date of communication of this order.

Needless to mention that if the District Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no subsisting tenancy in the premises in favour of the petitioners, respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to take steps in terms of the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claims of the petitioners which are kept open to be decided by the District Magistrate in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ application are deemed to have been not admitted by the respondents.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)