M/S.Emerald Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd v. The Andaman And Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Ltd
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WPA/976/2023 M/S Emerald Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd Vs The Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Ltd Mr. S.K.Golder Mr. Sohini Golder ... for the petitioner Mr. U.S. Menon (Through virtual mode) Ms. A. S. Zinu ... for the respondents October 19, 2023 [Manoj] Item No.6 The present writ petitioner is a party to a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT-II, Kolkata) vide case no. SA/21/2021. It is the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the bench of the DRT is not functioning due to the paucity of the P.O. The present petitioner has filed two applications in the said proceeding being a put up application and one application of the injunction in respect of one E-auction Sale Notice issued by the respondent-bank in the Daily Telegram dated October 05, 2023.
The E-auction Sale Notice fixing the date of e-auction on November 06, 2023. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that his petition of injunction was filed but as there is no authority to hear out the said application for injunction and there is arguable grounds in favour of the present petitioner so till the matter be heard by the concerned DRT, the said e-auction sale notice dated October 05, 2023 need be stayed.
not functional at this juncture one appropriate order need to be passed by this Writ Court.
The Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Cooperative Bank submits that the matter pertains to the DRT and the Writ Court has no jurisdiction to enter into the merit of the said case. He further argued that after initiation of the said proceeding before the learned DRT no interim protection was given to the petitioner. He again pointed out that the proposal of the onetime settlement as argued by the learned advocate for the petitioners is not conformity with the rules and guidelines formulated by the Reserve Bank of India, so it is not possible for the Bank to adhere to the proposal of the present petitioner.
He further submits that the money pertains to the public money and the same e-auction need to be conducted on the day fixed.
Heard the learned advocates, perused the materials and documents on records. It appears to me that the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was served upon the present petitioner in the month of May, 2020. After such service, the application was filed before the learned DRT Kolkata vide case no. SA/21/2021.
Admittedly, the concerned DRT-II has not passed any interim protection in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the said proceeding. It is true that a person cannot be roam remediless. Thus, an appropriate order is
required but at the same time it is looked into that the petitioner must have approached to the concerned bank with the proposal which can be within their ambit to accept. The E-auction Sale Notice, which is a result of a proceeding pending before the DRT-II Kolkata cannot be stayed by this Court.
At this juncture, I think it necessary not to pass any interim order in favour of the present petitioner rather the respondent State Cooperative Bank is directed to reassess the proposal of the present petitioner, if he placed within a fortnight to the bank.
If it appears that the proposal is applicable is in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, they shall accept it and consequently, the sale notice is not required to be executed.
On the above direction, the writ petition being WPA/976/2023 disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities ( Subhendu Samanta, J. )