Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO349OF2014GA2953of 2014 GA2980of 2014 WITH WP1061of 2013 MOHAN GENERAL TRADING COMPANY & ANOTHER Versus UNITED BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE Date : 17th September, 2014.
Mr.Sandip Bhattacharyya, Advocate Mr.Suman Basu, Advocate Mr.Abdul Masood, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Sen, Advocate …for petitioner Mr.Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.Aniruddha Roy, Advocate Mr.R.K.Rai, Advocate Mr.A.Basu, Advocate …for respondent 1 Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate-on-record Mr.Arindam Mandal, Advocate Mr.Sabyasachi Roychowdhury, Advocate ..for State The Court :- The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2014 wherein the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent/police to assist the respondent bank in taking possession of the property.
It is not in dispute that the appellant had borrowed loan from respondent bank and for default on the part of the appellant the respondent bank brought a secured property for sale.
Questioning the said sale of the property debtor has already approached Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act and appeal is pending.
It is not in dispute that on account of default on the part of the appellant in complying with the interim direction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal the property came to be sold for a sum of Rs.1.83 crore.
However, the property is still in the possession of the appellant.
Therefore, the bank approached learned Magistrate under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 seeking possession of the property which came to be allowed, however, when they were not able to take possession of the property, the bank approached in the present writ petition seeking assistance of the police as they are unable to get the possession of the property through Magistrate Court as provided under Section 14 of the Act.
The learned Judge after giving opportunity to the appellant to submit, proceeded to allow the prayer of the writ petition.
Aggrieved by the same the appellant is before us.
Various questions are raised by him so far as genuineness of the orders of the Magistrate as also jurisdictional issue.
The fact remains, there is no dispute with regard to the loan taken from the respondent bank and amounts due to the respondent bank.
It is also not in dispute that the property has been sold and the possession has to be handed over.
Whether there is correct calculation of amount or the outstanding is incorrect and whether sale is justified or not, are all the questions, to be gone into by Debt Recovery Tribunal as it is fact finding authority also.
This proceeding is only in respect of the proceedings under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and we do not find any good ground to interfere with the opinion of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition by granting assistance of the police in securing the possession of the property.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed so also the applications.
Stay of operation of the order is sought for and the same stands rejected.
(MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J.) (BANERJEE, J.) GH.