Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. Saptansu Basu Mr. Soumen Datta Mr. Pinaki Brata Ghosh Ms. Susmita Mazumdar ... For the Respondent No.6.

Party/parties are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.

Under challenge in this writ petition is the execution of sale of mortgaged assets, viz. the Cold Storage in issue by the Respondent/West Bengal Financial Corporation (WBFC) in favour of the Private Respondent No.6.

Mr, Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, alleges that the execution of sale in favour of the Private Respondent No.6 by the WBFC has not been in accordance with either the statute or the agreement by and between the parties. It is relevant to note that the parties, meaning thereby the writ petitioner No.1/Company, WBFC and the State Bank of India entered into a tripartite agreement whereby loan was extended by the WBFC to the petitioner No.1/Company on creation of first charge in favour of WBFC and the second charge in favour of SBI.

It is further relevant to mention that the document annexed to the tripartite agreement, inter alia, disclosed that along with the quantum of land belonging to the petitioner No.1/Company, the plant and machinery attached to the Cold Storage also stood hypothecated.

Mr. Chakraborty submits that the valuation of the assets of the petitioner No.1, as on 6th February, 2008 was far above the charged amount claimed by WBFC on behalf of self and, on behalf of the second charge holder/SBI. It is pointed out that the sale having been executed much below the valuation as disclosed from a Valuer's Report dated 6th February, 2008 to the Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioner, would mean and imply that the petitioner has not been handed out a fair deal by the WBFC.

The additional point argued by Mr. Chakraborty is that the Notice of Sale was not widely advertised as enjoined by the law laid down in 2011 (4) SCC Page 171.

Mr. Chakraborty therefore submits that the execution of sale in favour of the Private Respondent No.6 requires to be set aside by cancelling the Deed of Sale dated 31st of October, 2011.

Mr. De, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of WBFC, draws the attention of this Court to Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short the 1951 Act).