AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant revisional application is directed against an order dated 17th January, 2020 passed by the learned Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal in SA
04 of 2020.
The gist of the order impugned is set out hereinbelow:
“For the SARFAESI applicant: Mr. Jaydip Banerjee, Adv., For the Respondent Benk : Mr. Jay Manna, Adv. I.A. 32 of 2020 has been filed by the
Sarfaesi Applicant challenging the sale notice dated 19.11.2019 which was published in the newspaper on 17.11.2019 under which the sale was
scheduled to he held on 20.12.2020.
Mr. Jay Manna, Ld. counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that no bids have been received in respect of the said sale notice.
In view of such submission, the impugned sale notice has become infructuous and consequently, the IA has also become infructious.
The SA has been filed challenging the self-same sale notice dt. 19.11.2019. Accordingly, the Sa has also become infructious.
Accordingly, both the SA and IA stand dismissed as being infructious. No order as to costs.
The case records be consigned to be record room.
Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.â€
I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and I am of the view that there is no infirmity which warrants any interference
whatsoever in this jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no illegality nor jurisdictional error nor error of law committed by
the Presiding Officer. The impugned order contained reasons and I am of the view that the reasons do not call for any interference whatsoever. Such
applications are more often than not made by a defaulter or a borrower with the sole aim of frustrating and delaying the entire proceedings before the
Tribunal. It is to be remembered that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be sparingly exercised and not for the asking.
CO 1127 of 2020 is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Accordingly, CAN 3540 of 2020 is also dismissed.