Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sonali Mukherjee & Another vs Union Of India & Others on 29 July, 2019
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
z 1 5 29.07. M.A.T. 1497 of 2017 AB 2019 & SDE With Court 1 C.A.N. 9462 of 2017 Sonali Mukherjee & Another Vs Union of India & Others
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shamim Ahmed ...For the Appellants. Mr. G. Chakraborty ...For the Central Bank of India Mr. Atis Dipankar Ray, Ms. Sanjukta Ray, Ms. Swarupa Saha ...For the UCO Bank.
We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for UCO Bank as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Central Bank of India.
The writ appellants / writ petitioners, as we see from the facts of the case, are apparently between the devil and the deep sea.
Appellants are auction purchasers of a flat in a sale conducted by UCO Bank under the SARFAESI Act. They are in possession of that apartment. However, the registration of the document was not done. They came to this Court seeking a direction upon the UCO Bank to register the documents in their favour. Alternatively, they prayed for refund of the amounts paid by them as purchase price in the sale conducted by UCO Bank.
In the writ petition, the Central Bank of India came out with a plea that the same security asset is the security offered to it and the security interest that the z 2 Central Bank of India had over the property, was also put to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and such property has been sold by the Central Bank of India as well.
Thus, there could be competing claims in relation to the same flat or apartment.
However, it is pointed out that the sale certificate issued by the UCO Bank identifies the flat with a building number, but the sale certificate issued by the Central Bank of India does not carry any identification of the apartment on the basis of numbers.
UCO Bank and Central Bank of India are nationalized banks. They fall for adequate and appropriate control by the Reserve Bank of India.
This is not one of those cases where the matter cannot be left at the stage in which it has now reached. The learned Single Judge has ordered in the writ petition refusing the relief claimed by the petitioners by way of refund of amount. It has left the Central Bank of India and the UCO Bank to proceed as it may find appropriate.
We think that the facts of the case in hand require a deeper look to ensure that the confidence of those, who buy such secured assets in auction by different banks, are regulated as may be required. The very peculiar facts and circumstances of this case persuade us to direct an enquiry to be conducted into the transactions of the UCO Bank and the Central Bank of India, which have led to this litigations and the proceedings which were carried by both these banks.
Hence, we direct that an enquiry as aforesaid shall z 3 be conducted by the Banking Ombudsman appointed under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 or any succeeding Scheme, who has authority over the territory of the State of West Bengal. The Banking Ombudsman will be at liberty to exercise all powers in terms of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme as well as such further authority as may be necessary for due conclusion of the enquiry ordered hereby. We hereby authorize the Banking Ombudsman to exercise such powers. We do so in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Banking Ombudsman having jurisdiction over the State of West Bengal is required to conduct an enquiry following due procedure as to notice, hearing etc. and also maintaining confidentiality as may be found necessary and due. The enquiry shall be completed and a report shall be submitted before this Court on or before 15th November, 2019.
The UCO Bank, Central Bank of India and the writ appellants are directed to mark their presence at the Office of the Banking Ombudsman who has jurisdiction over the State of West Bengal forthwith to enable commencement of proceedings. If the Ombudsman deems it appropriate to issue notice to any other parties, be it auction purchaser or otherwise, it is clarified that the Banking Ombudsman will be at liberty to do so.
Central Bank of India and UCO Bank are directed to provide copy of this order to the Banking Ombudsman concerned and cooperate appropriately with it by furnishing documents and materials, as may be required by that authority.
z 4
It is further directed that the possession of the compartment will be continued to be protected with the person with whom such possession is now.
Let this matter appear on 18th November, 2019.
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J.) ( Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)