Tripura High Court
Sri Biswajit Saha vs The State Bank Of India on 7 December, 2021 Page – 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.764/2021
Sri Biswajit Saha.
…………. Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State Bank of India.
…………. Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C S Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P Saha, Advocate.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_R_D_E_ R_
07/12/2021
(Indrajit Mahanty, CJ).
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has come to be filed challenging the
vacation notice issued by the respondent-State Bank of India for all the
properties and also an auction notice dated 10 th September 2021 claiming a
sum of Rs.2,97,46,766/- against the petitioner (without deducting an
amount of Rs.65,64,707/- allegedly paid by the petitioner). It is further
submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner approached the Bank seeking
extension of time and by communication dated 24 th September 2021 the
respondent-Bank refused to grant any further time and in the meanwhile,
Page – 2 of 4
the petitioner also obtained a purchaser for Property No.1. It is also averred
that the petitioner accumulated fund from the buyer and wanted to deposit
an amount of Rs.1,21,00,000/- and requested for stoppage of auction but in
spite of offering the said amount by demand draft, the respondent-Bank
refused to receive the said money and proceeded to fix the date of auction
on 25th October 2021.
It is asserted by the petitioner that being left with no other
alternative especially keeping in mind the fact that the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) is located at Kolkata in the State of West
Bengal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition stating that there was
no time for approaching the appellate tribunal.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Bank asserted that the amount offered by the petitioner was much less than
the amount certified to be due and payable by him as certified by the DRT
vide its certificate/order dated 20th July 2021 and that the Bank was under
no obligation to accept any amount less than the certificate amount.
Learned counsel for the Bank also placed reliance on a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of
Travancore and Anr. Vs. K. C. Mathew reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to earlier judgments
Page – 3 of 4
referred therein has held that the High Court will not entertain a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is
available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action
complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of
grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created
by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained
ignoring the statutory dispensation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in response submitted that the
petitioner is ready and willing to approach the DRAT but claimed that
since there was inadequate time to approach the appellate tribunal which is
located at a distance at Kolkata in the State of West Bengal he was
compelled to move the Writ Court in such circumstances.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions as well the citation
produced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, the principle laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is absolutely binding and applies to
the present case. However, this Court takes into consideration the fact that
a party who is aggrieved by any order of the DRT, Agartala, has to travel to
Kolkata to approach the appellate tribunal. Accordingly, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims by the petitioner and the
respondent’s stand, we direct as follows :
Page – 4 of 4
The Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with
law. However, the petitioner is also at liberty to approach
the DRAT and the DRAT shall proceed with the matter
strictly in accordance with law without in any manner
being influenced by any observation made herein.
However, if the Bank proceeds to conduct a fresh e-auction
of the property in question the said e-auction, if any, shall
not be confirmed without the liberty granted to it by the
DRAT. We make it clear that in the event the respondent-
Bank proceeds to hold e-auction they are also at liberty to
seek the permission of the DRAT but before confirmation
of the same subject to the petitioner filing an appeal within
a period of 4(four) weeks from today.
Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( INDRAJIT MAHANTY, CJ )
Sukhendu
Comments