Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Escort Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs United Bank Of India & Ors on 20 September, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
20‐09‐2017
S.D.
W.P. 1092 (W) of 2015
With
CAN 2568 of 2016
Escort Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Versus
United Bank of India & Ors.
Mr. Arka Pratim Chowdhury
Ms. Sibangi Chattopadhyay
....For the Petitioners.
Mr. Prabir Banerjee
....For the Respondent No. 4.
Mr. Basudeb Mukherjee ....For the UBI.
In re: CAN 2568 of 2016.
This is an application seeking interim protection in the writ petition.
Since the relief sought for in the interim application is such that, the merits of the writ petition is to be looked at, the parties are requested to address the Court on the merits of the writ petition itself.
By consent of the parties, W.P. 1092 (W) of 2015 is treated as on the day's list and taken up for consideration along with CAN 2568 of 2016.
2Affidavits filed in Court be kept with the record. It appears from the records that, the writ petitioners assail recall notice issued by the bank dated October 29, 2014 and a letter dated September 30, 2014 by which the bank has refused to accept the substitution of the collateral security.
It further appears from the records that, the petitioners had obtained credit facilities from the bank mortgaging immovable properties. The petitioners wanted to replace such securities by depositing title deeds in respect of other immovable properties. The bank had considered such request and is of the view that, the substitution is not possible. It has rejected the request by the writing dated September 30, 2014. It has gone on to recall the credit facilities by the writing dated October 29, 2014. The Court is informed that, a proceeding under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata.
The bank is entitled to recall its credit facility. It is also entitled to consider a substitution of the securities and return the same. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that, the rejection of the request for the substitution of the collateral 3 securities is so perverse as to be shock the conscience of the Court or that the bank has taken a perverse decision. The bank has already initiated a proceeding under the Act of 1993.
In such circumstances, there is no merit in the present writ petition.
W.P. No. 1092 (W) of 2015 is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, no order need be passed in the interim application.
CAN 2568 of 2016 is also dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 4