Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Robin Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Andhra Bank & Ors on 26 September, 2016
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Samapti Chatterjee
1
26.9.2016
8
KD
W.P. 3287(W) of 2011
Robin Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
-vs-
Andhra Bank & Ors.
Mr. Susovan Sengupta,
Mr. Abhisek Panda,
Mr. Debabrata Basu Ray
... for the Petitioners
Mr. Rajsekhar Mantha
... for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. Sudip Deb, Mr. Asok Bhawmik ... for the Respondent No. 3 It is submitted by Mr. Susovan Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that after accepting a total sum of Rs. 31,67,803/- on auction sale against the Plot Nos. 244 and 245 (Part), J.L. No. 2, Sheet No. - 8, Khatian No. 571, Holding No. 2906, P.S. Bhati Nagar, Mouza
- Debgram under Siliguri Municipal Corporation, Siliguri Branch, those plots have not been handed over by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 namely Andhra Bank and its authorised Officer, 4/2 Karaya Road, Kolkata - 700 017 to the petitioners.
Mr. Susovan Sengupta further contends that it is revealed from the records that till date that possession has not been handed over to the petitioners.
This submission of Mr. Sengupta is vehemently opposed by Mr. Rajsekhar Mantha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, but Mr. Mantha failed to produce any documents showing that the possession has been handed over to the petitioners.
Be that at it may, the respondent-Bank is hereby directed to hand over the said possession in favour of the petitioners, as mentioned above, if not already handed over, within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 2 The Officer-in-Charge, Bhakti Nagar Police Station is directed to ensure all assistance to the respondent-Bank at the time of handing over of the possession in favour of the petitioners in respect of the property as indicated above.
Mr. Sudip Deb, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3, submits that his property relates to Plot Nos. 241 and 245 (Part), J.L. No. 5 but not J.L. No. 2.
Considering the submission advanced by the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3, the name of the respondent no. 3 is deleted from the writ petition.
With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
The petitioners are directed to serve a copy of the writ petition along with this order to the concerned Officer-in-Charge.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Samapti Chatterjee, J. )