M/S Emerald Marketing Services Pvt Ltd And ANR v. Andaman And Nicobar State Co-Op Bank Ltd

02.11.2023 Ct. No. 5 (Vacation Bench) SB Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Port Blair W.P.A. 989 of 2023 M/s. Emerald Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.

Andaman and Nicobar State Co-OP. Bank Ltd.

Mr. Manas Ajai Sonkar ... for the petitioners Mr. U.S. Menon Mr. Abhirup Chkraborty ... ... for respondent no. 1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners had taken a loan from the respondent co-operative bank. Because of some default a proceeding was initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Symbolic possession was taken. Now a date has been fixed for e-auction on 06.11.2023. However, the concerned Bench i.e., D.R.T. No. 2, Kolkata where the main matter is pending is vacant at present. Pursuant to a direction passed by the Court, alternative proposals were given to the bank. But, the bank has not responded to the same in a positive manner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 / bank relies on the copy of the order dated 02.5.2022 passed by the D.R.T. No. 2, Kolkata, which is taken on record and submits as follows. The allegations made in the writ petition are denied. Ample opportunities were given to the petitioners to either pay back the amount or to come to a reasonable compromise. But the petitioners

failed to do so. In fact, as per order dated 02.5.2022 passed by D.R.T. No. 2, Kolkata the petitioners were granted an opportunity to come up with a revised compromise proposal with an upfront amount of Rs.10% of the 13(2) notice amount within 15 days from the date of the order. That was also not complied with. Admittedly, the same issue was taken up by the petitioners before the Circuit Bench at Port Blair. By an order dated 19.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.A. 976 of 2023, this Court refused to stay the e-auction sale notice. However, the State Co-operative Bank was directed to reassess the proposal of the present petitioner, within a period of fortnight. The bank, thereafter did reassess the proposal. In fact, it reduced the amount that was payable. Even that sum was not paid and / or agreed to be paid by the petitioners.

It appears that the same issue was earlier taken up by the petitioners before this Court at the Circuit Bench at Port Blair. The order dated 19.10.2023 passed in W.P.A. 976 of 2023 was not even challenged by the petitioners. Pursuant to such order a proposal given by the petitioners was reassessed by the respondent bank.

There has to be an end to every proceeding. The petitioners cannot be permitted to take the same or similar points in one application after the other to avoid consequences of their actions.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to pray for transfer of the main proceeding to any Bench of learned D.R.T., Kolkata which is not lying vacant.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon completion of requisite formalities.

(JAY SENGUPTA, J.)