Authority: Calcutta High Court

Order Date: 15 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Unique Procon Private Limited; Respondents – Punjab National Bank (secured creditor) and others.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Constitutional writ petition under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court, seeking cancellation of an e‑auction and forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner.
  • Background:
  • The petitioner participated in an e‑auction conducted by PNB for two parcels of land (L.R. Plot Nos. 878 and 899, Mouza: Shankarpur, P.S. Durgapur, District Paschim Burdwan) and a building.
  • After being declared the highest bidder, the petitioner deposited Rs 8,20,047.20, which represented 10% of the total bid value.
  • The petitioner later discovered that Plot No. 878 was a barga land with rights created in favour of Chittaranjan Bagdi and that a portion had been acquired by the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority.
  • Upon informing PNB of these encumbrances, the bank pressured the petitioner to pay the remaining bid amount.
  • PNB issued a letter dated 7 October 2023 forfeiting the deposited amount, cancelling the first e‑auction, and conducting a subsequent e‑auction on 5 October 2023.
  • Related Litigation: The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 40 of 2025 in the Civil Court (Junior Division) at Durgapur, obtaining an interim order in his favour. PNB then filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and on 21 September 2026 the court rejected the plaint. The petitioner consequently filed the present writ petition.
  • Contentions:
  • Petitioner (advocated by Mr. Debashis Banerjee) – Seeks direction to complete the sale in his favour upon payment of the remaining bid amount and to demarcate possession. Argues that a writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, invoking fundamental rights and citing South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. (2023) 17 SCC 311.
  • Respondents (advocated by Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury) – Assert that under sub‑section (5) of Section 9 of the SARFAESI Act, PNB lawfully forfeited the deposit and completed a second auction, issuing a sale certificate to the successful bidder. Contend that the petitioner should have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and that the writ petition is not maintainable.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The auction was conducted on an “as‑is‑where‑is” basis, but such clauses do not grant the secured creditor immunity from illegality; participants must obtain requisite information about the property.

2. PNB exercised its power under sub‑section (5) of Section 9 of the SARFAESI Act to forfeit the deposit after the petitioner failed to pay the remaining bid amount within the stipulated period and subsequently held a second auction, issuing a sale certificate and handing over possession to the successful bidder.

3. While a writ petition can be entertained despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy on grounds such as enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, jurisdictional excess, or vires of a provision, the court held that the petitioner’s grievance does not fall under any of these categories. The forfeiture and subsequent auction do not constitute a violation of a fundamental right, nor do they involve denial of natural justice or jurisdictional error.

4. The propriety of the forfeiture, cancellation of the first e‑auction, and conduct of the second e‑auction are matters that must be adjudicated before the appropriate forum – either by challenging the order rejecting the plaint in the appropriate appellate court or by filing an application before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition (WPA 30179 of 2026) is dismissed.
  • The order expressly clarifies that the dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum for redress of his grievances in accordance with law.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties may obtain a certified copy of the order upon compliance with usual formalities.

Topics: Writ Petition; SARFAESI Act Enforcement; Banking Regulation