Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 81 (CAL)

BIPLAB KUMAR BANERJEE v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

2019-01-17

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2019
JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 19th December, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 23830 (W) of 2018 (Sri Biplab Kumar Banerjee vs. State Bank of India & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with certain directions. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 4. A bare perusal of the records reveals that there is an on-going proceeding under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act). 5. The appellant/writ petitioner is the applicant no.2 in the said proceeding, being a person aggrieved. 6. At this juncture, we wish to take notice of the provisions as contained under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, in particular, section 17(5) which reads as follows:- "17. Application against measures to recover secured debts. (5) Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1)." 7. A bare perusal of the provision of law as quoted above reveals that if an application is made under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the same is required to be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application. 8. In the facts of the instant case, this application appears to have been filed as far back as in the year 2010. The same is still pending. 9. 8. In the facts of the instant case, this application appears to have been filed as far back as in the year 2010. The same is still pending. 9. In such facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant/writ petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Tribunal praying for expeditiously disposal of the pending application within the time-frame as specified under section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act. 10. In the meanwhile, if any auction sale takes place, the same shall not be confirmed without leave of the learned Tribunal. 11. Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations made in the application for stay shall be deemed to be not admitted by the answering respondents. 12. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.