T.
No.301 of 2014 WP No.982 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ANITA KATYAL Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Appearance Mr.Sandip Kr.
Bhattacharya, Adv.…Petitioner Mr.Arindam Mondal, Adv.…State Mr.D.N.Sharma, Adv.Mr.Ratnesh Rai, Adv.Mr.Anunoy Basu, Adv.…Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : October 9, 2014.
The Court : This is a disingenuous attempt by persons who obtained money from the bank and think it is their fundamental right not to repay.
They cite the scriptures and do not stop at anything to abuse the process.
The petitioner herein takes refuge under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in a mischievous attempt to stall the respondent bank from exercising its rights under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
By some 2 convoluted logic, which should not be given any degree of respectability by being noticed in detail, the petitioner refers to the definition section of the 2005 Act and to sections 17, 19 and 27 thereof to suggest that the petitioner’s rights in respect of a property whereat the petitioner is entitled to reside, cannot be trodden over by the borrowers of the respondent bank.
In couRs.of the petitioner citing the said Act of 2005 to save the property that has already been taken possession of by the respondent bank, the petitioner does not leave out the emotional quotient that is so dear to Bollywood.
There is a daughter’s marriage on the anvil and the petitioner makes out that unless the house is allowed to be used for such purpose, innocent buds may wither away without being allowed to blossom.
Notwithstanding the festive season, reason can never be on vacation nor allowed to be held to ransom by any misplaced sense of sympathy.
The respondent bank has taken possession of the secured asset pursuant to orders obtained and by procedure established by law.
It appears that at least one partner of the principal borrower firm had instituted proceedings in this Court which culminated in the bank being permitted to take steps in accordance with the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the said Act of 2002.
No law nor any fact of any relevance has been cited in this petition for the Court to depart from the procedure recognised by the said Act of 2002 or interdict the steps taken by the bank.
WP No.982 of 2014 is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.1 lakh.
3 Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) sg/B.Pal.