Calcutta High Court
Manoj Toshniwal vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 12 April, 2023
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
OD-7, 8, 10, 11 & 12
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/33/2023
With
WPO/13/2021
IA No:GA/1/2023
MANOJ TOSHNIWAL
VS.
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
APOT/34/2023
With
WPO/12/2021
IA No:GA/1/2023
RAMESH CHANDRA BARDIA
VS.
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
APOT/44/2023
With
WPO/20/2021
IA No:GA/1/2023
MKN INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
VS.
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
APOT/45/2023
With
WPO/24/2021
IA No:GA/1/2023
BIPLAB SHANKAR BOSE
VS.
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
APOT/46/2023
With
WPO/26/2021
IA No:GA/1/2023
SWAPAN KUMAR DATTA
VS.
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
2
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 12th April, 2023
Appearance :
Mr. S.N. Mookerji, Sr. Adv./Adv. Genl.
Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv.
Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Karnani, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Naman Choudhury, Adv.
... for appellant
Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anirban Pramanik, Adv.
Ms. Subhoshree Dey, Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Kundu, Adv.
... for respondent
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Souradeep Banerjee, Adv.
... for employee Director The Court : We have heard Mr. S.N. Mookerji, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Joy Saha, learned senior Counsel for the respondent bank and Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the employee director.
This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th January, 2023, passed in WPO No. 13 of 2021. By the said writ petition, the appellant challenged the order passed by the respondent declaring the appellant as a willful defaulter. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant had the benefit of an interim order restraining the respondents from publishing the 3 name of the appellant in the list of willful defaulters till January 31, 2021 or until further orders, whichever is earlier. The matter was heard out finally and the writ petition has been dismissed.
There are seven volumes of stay petition containing documents and the learned senior Advocates on either side submitted that the matter has to be heard finally and any argument on the prayer for interim relief will be same as that of the arguments in the main appeal itself. The learned senior Advocate for the appellant would press for an interim order.
In our considered view, the learned Single Bench of this Court has taken note of the arguments and the directions sought for in the writ petition has been dismissed. In such circumstances, we are not convinced to deal with the interim order which the appellant was enjoying during the pendency of the writ petition since as soon as a person is declared as willful defaulter, by operation of relevant Regulations, other Sections will automatically follow. Therefore, having lost before the first forum, in our view, in an intra-court appeal unless a strong case is made out, such an interim order cannot be granted. However, we are of the view that one of the interim orders sought for in the writ petition, though not granted, was to restrain the appellants from publishing the photographs of the appellant in the newspaper or any other publications. Though Mr. Saha, learned senior counsel for the respondent bank submitted that such an interim order was not granted by the learned Single Bench, we are conscious of the fact that such an interim order was not granted though there is a prayer to the said effect.
As observed, we are not inclined to grant interim order which was granted on 14th January, 2021 by the learned Single Bench. However, we are of the view 4 that till the appeal is heard and disposed of, the photograph of the appellant/writ petitioner shall not be published in newspaper or any other publication.
We make it clear this interim order will not, in any manner, put fetters on the respondent bank from initiating action in accordance with the relevant statute.
Let the matter be listed for directions on 5th June, 2023. Since it is submitted by the learned senior counsel on either side that all relevant documents are annexed to the stay petition in seven volumes, filing of informal paper book is dispensed with.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SN AR(CR)