Calcutta High Court
Santosh Kedia vs Standard Chartered Bank & Ors on 25 March, 2014
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
ORDER SHEET
WP No.232 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SANTOSH KEDIA
Versus
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
Date: 25th March, 2014
Mr. Amitava Das, Adv. with
Mr. Prasenjit Pal, Adv.
Mr. Avirup Chatterjee, Adv.
..for the petitioner
Mr. Suvodeep Chakraborty, Adv.
..for the respondents
In this writ petition dated 12th March, 2014, the petitioner seeks to challenge three notices issued by the Standard Chartered Bank. The first one, dated September 25, 2013 was issued in exercise of power conferred by Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter 'the Act'). The remaining two, dated January 3, 2014 and January 27, 2014, were issued in terms of Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned possession notices refer to taking over of symbolic possession of the secured asset by the bank and in view of the 2 observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 36 and its several sub-paragraphs of the decision reported in (2013) 9 SCC 620, there is no scope of taking symbolic possession and there is every possibility of the petitioner's application under Section 17(1) of the Act being rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction on the ground that measures under Section 13(4) of the Act are yet to be taken.
I am afraid, I cannot agree with Mr. Das. In fact, the submission is misconceived. In the cited decision, the Supreme Court did not have the occasion to deal with a case where symbolic possession had been taken over by the secured creditors. It was dealing with a case where the secured creditors had made an application under Section 14 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereupon an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the secured assets and to hand over the same to the secured creditor. It was in such facts and circumstances that the observations in paragraph 36 and its several sub-paragraphs came to be made.
I have not been able to find any observation in such decision that symbolic possession of the secured asset cannot be taken.
The bank having taken symbolic possession of the secured assets, the petitioner is certainly entitled to present an application before the Tribunal for a decision on its merits.
3
The writ petition stands dismissed, without costs. This order shall not preclude the petitioner to move the Tribunal in accordance with law. The period during which this writ petition was pending on the file of this Court shall be excluded for computing the period of limitation.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.) AKGoswami