AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner appears in person on behalf of himself and the petitionercompany. The writ petitioner no.2 submits that the order dated May 21, 2014
passed by the Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal No.2 in S.A. No.418 of 2013 had set aside the action of the defendant bank taken under Section 14
of the Act, 2002 including the orders of the Additional District Magistrate dated March 3, 2014. In the said order, liberty had been granted to the
defendant- Bank to initiate fresh steps under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of Sarfaesi Act, 2002 subject to defendant-Bank sending a proper/detailed
reply to the representation dated 18.12.2012 of the applicant within a period of 3 weeks.
Mr. Navin Kumar Das, authorised officer-cum-Chief Manager and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahoo, Vice-President (Law), being the representatives of the
State Bank of India appear and submit that no detailed reply to the representation dated 18.12.2012 had been given by the defendant-Bank.
In view of the above, the action taken by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) and Section 14 subject to passing of the order of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal cannot be sustained under any circumstances. The respondent-Bank could have only taken action under Section 13(4) and Section
14 after having given a detailed reply to the representation dated 18.12.2012.
In light of the above, the order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas is quashed and set aside.
Liberty is granted to the defendant-Bank to proceed in accordance with law and in compliance of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated
May 21, 2014.
With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed.