Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sukla Biswas @ Smt. Sukla Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 June, 2018
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
1 04.06.2018 Ct No.14 S/L No.1 KS W. P. 5862(W) of 2018 Sukla Biswas @ Smt. Sukla Biswas Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Malay Basu Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee ..... for the Petitioner Mr. Raja Saha Mr. Abdus Salam ..... For the State Affidavit‐of‐service is filed in court be kept with the record. The writ petitioner has been summoned under Section 139 of the 2006 Act to repay the dues of the principal debtor. The principal debtor admittedly has been unable to satisfy the dues and claims of the bank.
The writ petitioner claims that prior to that stage she had no notice of the proceedings before the Tribunal against the principal debtor. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that the documents based on which liability is sought to fastened on her are fake, fraudulent and forged. The Tribunal has not decided the said issue in accordance with law.
It is trite law that an allegation of forgery of documents based on which a person is called upon to make goods sums of money, is required to be dealt with by trial on evidence. This is more necessary as the alleged signature of the petitioner is in Capital letters.
The Tribunal has not done so. Neither is any detailed reason recorded as to why the plea of the writ petitioner could not been believed by the Tribunal.
In those circumstances, the award dated 7th March, 2018 passed under Section 139 of the WBCS Act, 2006 against the writ petitioner Smt. Sukla Biswas is hereby set aside.
The Tribunal shall be entitled to adjudicate afresh the claims of the writ petitioner as regards the validity of the documents of surety. 2
The Tribunal shall upon an appropriate application from the petitioner, as regards the evidence she wishes to produce before the Tribunal take steps to decide the said proceedings under Section 139 afresh, by trial on evidence.
The writ petitioner undertakes before this Court not to seek any adjournment on any ground whatsoever before the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall not grant any adjournment. The hearing shall be taken upon a day to day basis. The Tribunal shall dispose of such matter mandatorily within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Bank/Tribunal may take the assistance of any handwriting expert or such an independent authority to determine the veracity of the claims of the writ petitioner upon due notice to the writ petitioner who shall be entitled to challenge such evidence.
With the above directions W.P. No. 5862(W) of 2018 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)