Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Anupama Bose Paul vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 February, 2021

Author: Rajasekhar Mantha

Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha

08.02.2021.
Item no. 144.
Court No.13
   ap
                            W.P.A. No. 817 of 2021
                         (Through Video Conference)
                             Anupama Bose Paul
                                    Versus
                        The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                 Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee,
                 Mr. Probal Sarkar.
                                              ...For the petitioner.
                 Mr. Srijan Nayak,
                 Ms. Rituparna Maitra.
                                                   ...For the State.
                 Mr. Shibasis Chatterjee.
                                       ...For the respondent no.6.

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.

The petitioner claims that her husband, namely, Bikram Bose, obtained a loan from Kalitala L.K. High School Employee's Credit Cooperative Society Limited. The said loan was funded by the Murshidabad District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Jangipur Branch.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that her husband died on 4th January, 2020 and that all his assets were sold for the purpose of his treatment.

The Bank by communication dated 12th October, 2020 has said that no interest should be charged after 4th January, 2020 in the aforesaid loan account.

The petitioner received a notice from the Bank on 23rd September, 2020 asking her to pay a sum of Rs.6,09,830/- which included interest as on 4th January, 2020.

This Court does not see any error having been committed by the Bank since admittedly all the interest from the date of death of the petitioner's husband has been waived.

The petitioner got an opportunity to avail the waiver atleast within a month from 23rd September, 2020, which she has not.

This Court cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in its writ jurisdiction, as there are disputed questions of fact involved.

It is made clear that the aforesaid order shall not prevent the petitioner from approaching the Bank for any concession that she may entitle to in accordance with law.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in this writ petition.

Accordingly, the instant writ application fails and is hereby dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order on usual undertakings.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)