Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Bench of Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai, J.)

Order Date: 01 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s. Biswas Fly Ash Bricks Industry; Respondents – The State of West Bengal, the bank (respondent no.2), and other respondents.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (W.P.A. 17064 of 2026) challenging an order dated 30 December 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Birbhum, under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
  • Background: The petitioner had obtained credit facilities from the bank and mortgaged an immovable property as security. The bank, alleging default, initiated SARFAESI proceedings and on 21 May 2025 filed an application under Section 14 seeking police assistance to take possession of the mortgaged property. The District Magistrate disposed of this application on 30 December 2025, granting the assistance.
  • Petitioner’s Allegations: The petitioner claimed the bank suppressed a civil‑court injunction (status‑quo order) that was in force over the same property in a partition suit filed by respondent no.7. The petitioner argued the bank, aware of this injunction, failed to inform the District Magistrate, thereby violating principles of natural justice and fair play.
  • Key Chronology:
  • 21 May 2025 – Bank files Section 14 application.
  • 30 Dec 2025 – District Magistrate orders police assistance.
  • 26 Nov 2025 – District Magistrate’s memo calls for a hearing of the petitioner and the bank.
  • 21 Feb 2026 – Civil Court allows the bank to be added as a defendant in the partition suit.
  • 29 Jun 2026 – Memo communicating the DM order is sent to petitioner (received by petitioner on 4 July 2026).
  • Bank’s Contentions: The bank asserted it was not a party to the injunction at the time the DM order was passed; therefore the injunction was not binding. It also highlighted that the petitioner had already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, providing an efficacious alternative remedy.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Both parties relied on Supreme Court judgments, including State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh (1957), PHR Invent Educational Society vs UCO Bank (2024), United Bank of India vs Satyawati Tondon (2010), Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev vs State of Maharashtra (2011), and Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs Vishwa Bharati Vidyta Mandir (2022). The court also referenced the distinction between maintainability and entertainability of writ petitions as discussed in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs Excise and Taxation Officer (2023).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy before the DRT precludes interference with the District Magistrate’s order under Article 226, absent an extraordinary or public‑law element.
  • It found no material suppression by the bank because the status‑quo injunction did not bind the bank at the relevant time.
  • Consequently, WPA 17064 of 2026 was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to pursue relief before the DRT as per law.
  • No order as to costs was made, and the order stands disposed of.

Topics: SARFAESI Act, Writ Petition, Banking Regulation