BGA REALTORS AND ANR V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/12161/2025

AI Insights

The case involves BGB Realtors & Anr. challenging an order dated May 23, 2025, by the learned CJM, Alipore, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners argued that the High Court had jurisdiction to examine the legality of the CJM's order, citing a precedent from the Supreme Court. However, the bank's representative contended that the petitioners had already sought relief from the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which had refused to grant an interim order. The State's representative added that the CJM's order had been executed, and possession of the secured assets had been taken. The court emphasized the principle of self-restraint in not interfering where an alternative statutory remedy exists, particularly in matters of bank recovery, and noted that the petitioners' plea of the Tribunal not functioning during summer vacation did not warrant bypassing this principle.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669661 (HC-CALCUTTA)
• Appeal Type: High Court cases
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore, Union of India & Ors. v. Satyawati Tandon
• Laws Referred To: SARFAESI Act, 2002
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DAIPAYAN BANERJEE; A GHOSH; SUBRATA BISWAS; DEBARATI BOSE; MOHUYA BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: RISHABH GUPTA
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction; Extraordinary jurisdiction; Recovery proceedings; SARFAESI Act
• Section: 14; 13(4)

Judgement Text

" 03-06- 2025 Item No.1 Subrata Bhattacharyy a AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.12161 of 2025 BGB Realtors & Anr. -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rishabh Dutta Gupta …for the petitioners Mr. Daipayan Banerjee Mr. A. Ghosh …for the bank Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas Ms. Debarati Sen Bose Ms. Mohuya Dutta Biswas …for the State The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated May 23, 2025, passed by the learned CJM, Alipore, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality of the order passed by the learned CJM under Section 14 of the 2002 Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 224 (Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore). In rebuttal, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the bank submits that, after being served with the notice under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act, the petitioners filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The learned Tribunal refused to grant any interim order in their favour. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal seeking an interim order. He submits that the petitioners, who have already availed themselves of the alternative remedy, are attempting to stall the recovery proceedings by preferring this writ petition. Mr. Guha Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the State, submits that the order passed by the learned CJM has already been acted upon and that the possession of the secured assets have been taken. Admittedly, the writ court has plenary and extraordinary powers to extend its long arm wherever injustice is found. However, over the years, the doctrine of self-imposed restrictions has evolved by the Court itself. Particularly, where an alternative remedy is provided by statute, the Court will not violate its own principle of self- restraint. In the present case, the SARFAESI Act, 2002 itself provides an alternative remedy. Where such an alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, the rule of self-restraint applies with greater rigour, particularly in matters relating to the recovery of bank dues and similar proceedings. A useful reference may be made to the judgment reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 (Union of India & Ors. v. Satyawati Tandon), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the High Courts not to interfere in such matters merely on the asking. 2 As noticed earlier, in response to the notice issued under Section 13(4), the petitioners have availed an alternative remedy. They are, however, taking the plea that the Tribunal is not functioning during the ongoing summer vacation. Consequently, they have approached this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to stall the recovery process. It is also noted that the order under challenge in the writ petition has already been acted upon. Taking notice of this fact and applying the principles enunciated in the judgment of Satyawati Tandon (supra), I am not inclined to interfere in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J] 3 4 "