High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 08 CAL CK 2744

Md. Noor Alam vs Union Of India & Ors.

Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side · Decided on 28 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Om Narayan Rai, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
WPA 14917 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 362 words
1.

This writ petition mounts challenge to the response 5 of the Bank apropos the petitioner’s representation 1 / against the Bank’s notice under Section 13(2) of the C Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial L Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2.

There are two insurmountable hurdles in entertaining the present writ petition.

3.

Firstly, since the writ petition has been filed impugning the action of a private Bank, the same cannot be entertained, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Limited Vs Sagar Thomas & Ors. reported at (2003) 10 SCC 733 which was reiterated in S. Shobha Vs Muthoot Finance Ltd. reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 177

4.

To wit, in terms of the authoritative dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled Bank cannot be termed as carrying on any public function or public duty and as such the same would not answer the definition of a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The being so, a writ petition assailing the action of such a Bank cannot be entertained.

5.

Secondly, it is even otherwise well settled, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. Imperial Gift House and others reported at (2013)14 SCC 622, that a writ petition cannot be entertained at any stage prior to the Bank taking any step under Section 13(4) of 2002 Act. The Bank’s response to the petitioner’s representation against the statutory notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act is clearly a step under Section 13(3A) of the 2002 Act i.e. before Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act.

6.

In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this writ petition is not entertained.

7.

WPA 14917 of 2026 stands dismissed. This order shall however, not preclude the petitioner from challenging the action of the Bank before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. No Costs.

8.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if