Where petitioner had borrowed money from bank and upon being unable to repay same

CL: Where petitioner had borrowed money from bank and upon being unable to repay same, bank had taken possession of secured asset pursuant to orders obtained by Court and since no law or any fact had been cited in petition for Court to deviate from procedure; bank was to be permitted to take steps in accordance with orders passed by Magistrate under section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 377 (Calcutta)
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Anita Katyal
v.
State of West Bengal
SANJIB BANERJEE, J.
T.NO. 301 OF 2014
WP NO. 982 OF 2014
OCTOBER  9, 2014
Section 14 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with sections 17, 19 & 21 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset- Petitioner had borrowed money from respondent bank - Upon petitioner being unable to pay same, respondent bank took possession of secured asset pursuant to orders obtained and by procedure established by law - Petitioner took refuge under 2005 Act in a
mischievous attempt to stall respondent bank from exercising its rights under 2002 Act - Further, to save property that had already been taken possession of by respondent bank, petitioner also took an emotional plea that there was a daughter's marriage and unless house is allowed to be used for such purpose, innocent buds may wither away without being allowed to blossom - Whether this appeared as an disingenuous attempt by petitioner who had obtained money from bank not to repay same - Held, yes - Whether thus bank was to be permitted to take steps in accordance with orders passed by Magistrate under section 14 of Act of 2002 - Held, yes
Sandip Kr. Bhattacharya Adv. and Arindam Mondal Adv. for the Petitioner. D.N. Sharma, Adv. Ratnesh Rai Adv. and Anunoy Basu Adv. for the Respondent.