Prosenjit Chakraborty And ANR v. State Bank Of India And ORS

OD 1 WPO/332/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PROSENJIT CHAKRABORTY AND ANR VS STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA Date: 2nd May, 2024.

Appearance:

Mr. Deepnath Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Debangshu Dinda, Adv.

. . .for the State.

The Court: Learned counsel for the bank, apprehending that there may be some misconstruction of the first sentence of the last paragraph at page 2 of the order dated April 30, 2024, has mentioned the matter for correction of such order. The said sentence reads as follows:- "Learned counsel for the bank submits that the bank did not have any role to play whatsoever in the alleged fraud, for which a criminal action has been initiated." Learned counsel for the bank submits that he had not submitted that a criminal action has been initiated.

However, the said phrase qualifies the term "alleged fraud". Hence, the last part of the said sentence cannot be attributed to the submission of the bank whose submission was confined, even as per the order under question, to the effect that the bank did not have any role to play whatsoever in the alleged fraud.

Hence, no further correction is necessary in the order. Since the writ petition has already been disposed of, no further order need be passed in that regard.

(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SP/