Calcutta High CourtWPA/23853/2025disposed

Anirban Sinha v. Indian Bank And ORS.

2025-11-27Hon'Ble Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra2 pages

THURSDAY Court : MB-24 Item : AD-17 Status : DO ID : 266312 AR : NANDY In the High Court at0 Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 23853 OF 2025 ANIRBAN SINHA VS.

INDIAN BANK & ORS.

Mr. Kanishk Sinha, Advocate Ms. Lipika Das, Advocate ......for the Petitioner Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Mondal, Advocate Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Advocate ......for the State Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh, Advocate ......for the Indian Bank

1. Affidavit of service, as filed, be kept with the record.

2. The petitioner challenges a sale notice issued by the Bank on 17.09.2025 fixing the e-auction on 10.11.2025.

3. During the course of hearing, I have been informed that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.4.50 lakhs and the auction has been stayed for the time being by the Bank. Thus, the notice of 17.09.2025 has become redundant.

4. Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has handed up two letters of the Bank dated 07.11.2025 and 24.11.2025, copies whereof are taken on record.

5. The purport of the afore-stated letters is that a further payment of Rs.2.10 lakhs would enable the Bank to upgrade the petitioner's account and the Bank would thereafter hand over the keys of the property to the petitioner.

6. Since the Bank has not fixed any timeline for the

P a g e | 2 next auction, a submission is made by Mr. Singh, learned Advocate representing the Bank that the payment of Rs.2.10 lakhs should be made by 30.11.2025.

7. On the petitioner's undertaking that such payment will be made within the extended time, if the same is extended by this Court, the petitioner is directed to make payment by 05.12.2025, failing which the Bank will be at liberty to take the next step without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner to redeem the mortgaged property.

8. With the afore-stated directions, WPA 23853 of 2025 is disposed of. No order as to costs.

9. Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations contained in the petition, are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. (REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA, J.)