Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Nivedita Barman Roy vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 September, 2010
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.19293 (W) of 2010
Smt. Nivedita Barman Roy
v.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. S.K. Mukherjee and Mr. S.K. Pal, advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Sovon
Siddhanta, advocate, for the bank.
Heard on: September 17, 2010.
Judgment on: September 17, 2010.
The Court: The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated September 9,
2010 is seeking the following principal relief:
"A. A writ and/or writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents specially respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to act in accordance with law and
without serving any notice under section 13(2), (3) and 13(4)(d) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and without compliance of the provision of the said Act of 2002 as aforesaid illegal and attempt of forceful possession of Flat No. 4A situated at 140A/4, N.S.C. Bose Road by respondent bank and/or its authorised Officers and/or agents be restrained;"
The petitioner wrote a letter dated August 11, 2010(at p.19) to the authorized officer of the Chawringhee branch of Andhra Bank stating that the authorized officer was to take possession of the flat under provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on August 11, 2010; that she was getting Rs.4000 monthly by letting out the flat to one Jyotirmoy Ghosh; that she was paying the bank Rs.25,000 cash; and that she would need a copy of the order of the District Magistrate for her record and convenience.
Counsel for the bank has produced the s.13(2) notice dated December 24, 2007 showing that it was received by one N. Barman Roy on February 2, 2008; a possession notice dated April 17, 2008 issued under s.13(4) showing that it was 2 received by one P.K. Roy Barman on April 17, 2008; a paper cutting showing that the possession notice dated April 17, 2008 was published in the newspaper on April 20, 2008; and an order of the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas dated December 17, 2009 under s.14 of the Act.
It is evident from the documents produced by counsel for the bank that both the s.13(2) notice dated December 24, 2007 and the possession notice dated April 17, 2008 were duly received by the petitioner through her agents. In her letter dated August 11, 2010 signed by her with N. Barman Roy and P.K. Roy Barman no allegation was made that without serving any notice under s.13(2) the authorized officer of the bank took measures under s.13(4).
It is evident that this is a frivolous petition, and that it has been brought suppressing all materials facts. Besides, the petitioner's remedy, if any, was before the Tribunal under s.17. Counsel for the Bank has relied on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., 2010 STPL( Web) 540 SC.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) sh