Chandra Sekhar Pradhan And ORS v. Ugro Capital And ORS

30/01 AD-04/24 266312 NANDY (DISMISSED) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 1674 of 2026 CHANDRA SEKHAR PRADHAN & ORS.

Vs.

UGRO CAPITAL & ORS.

Mr. Gobinda Chandra Baidya, Advocate Mr. Aminul Islam, Advocate ......for the Petitioner Ms. Soni Ojha, Advocate ......for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2

1. The affidavit of service as filed be kept with the record.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by a possession notice of 20.01.2026 issued by the respondent no. 2. The possession has not yet been taken and the efficacy of the notice of 20.01.2026 has already expired.

3. In the event, the Bank wishes to take possession, it will have to give a fresh possession notice. The petitioner will have a fresh cause of action. The petitioner's remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is constituted under the statute.

4. In view of, alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy being available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the writ-petition.

5. WPA 1674 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)

P a g e | 2