Buddhadeb Samanta Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited And Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: The Calcutta High Court declined to entertain a writ petition concerning alleged omissions in an inventory and Panchanama prepared by a secured creditor while taking possession of mortgaged property under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner had obtained credit facilities from respondent no.5 and mortgaged property measuring 85 decimals as security. Following alleged default, the secured creditor initiated SARFAESI proceedings and sold the secured asset through auction. The petitioner had already challenged the Bank’s measures and auction sale before Debts Recovery Tribunal No.3, Kolkata by filing SA 232 of 2026 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Before the High Court, the petitioner alleged that the inventory and Panchanama prepared by the Bank omitted certain items, including three buses and an underground oil reservoir, and sought restraint against handing over possession to the auction purchaser. The Court held that whether the inventory correctly reflected the state of affairs was a factual issue that could appropriately be decided by the DRT. Such an enquiry could not effectively be undertaken by the High Court in writ jurisdiction merely on affidavit evidence. Accordingly, the writ petition was not entertained. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the DRT regarding any alleged infringement of his rights in preparation of the inventory under Rule 4(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Since the SARFAESI application was already pending, the DRT was requested to dispose of it along with all interlocutory applications as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the next date fixed. WPA 24891 of 2026 was accordingly disposed of without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner seeks, inter alia, an order of restraint on the respondent no.5 & 6 from handing over possession of the property having an area of 85 decimal of land in Mouza -Kalinagar(Sener Chak), Post Office-Kak Kalinagar, Police Station Kakdwip under Harwood Point Coastal Police Station which stands mortgaged with the respondent no.5.
2. The petitioner had availed of certain credit facilities from the respondent no.5. In order to secure repayment thereof the petitioner created a mortgage in respect of aforesaid property in favour of the respondent no.5. The said credit facilities are allegedly in default.
3. The respondent no.5 has initiated measures under the relevant provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of the amount due and owing from the petitioner in respect of the credit facilities availed of by the petitioner.
4. In such process the respondent no.5 and 6 have sold the mortgaged assets (secured assets) through auction conducted under the provisions of the 2002 Act.
5. The measures taken by the Bank have been challenged by the petitioner before the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the 2002 Act.
6. It is now contended that the inventory and Panchanama (which appear at pages 46 to 53 of the writ petition) prepared by the Bank, while taking possession of the property omit certain essential items including three buses and an underground oil reservoir.
7. It is submitted that the respondent no.5 and 6 have issued a notice dated August 29, 2026 calling upon the petitioner to remove the articles and movable items from the aforesaid property in order to facilitate handing over possession thereof to the auction purchaser.
8. It is contended that the Bank has cleverly omitted the buses and the underground reservoir which are present there over the secured asset.
9. It is further submitted that despite representation being made to the respondent nos.1 and 2 they have not removed the buses and the oil from the reservoir. Similarly representation made before the respondent nos.3 & 4 for taking away the buses has also not been considered by the respondents.
10. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are represented while the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are not.
11. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner’s dealership was cancelled some 12 years back in July, 2014 and as such the petitioner assertions are absolutely without foundation.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal No. 3, Kolkata by filing an application under Section 17 of the 2002 Act, which has been registered as SA 232 of 2026. The auction sale conducted by the Bank is also a subject matter of challenge before the said Debts Recovery Tribunal. The aspect as to whether the inventory prepared by the Bank reflects the correct state of affairs or not can very well be decided by the Tribunal itself. The same cannot fall for decision of this Court in its writ jurisdiction. It would require factual enquiry which cannot be effectively done on the basis of affidavit evidence.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is not entertained.
14. The petitioner will be free to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal alleging any infraction of his right in preparation of the inventory by the Bank under Rule 4(2) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rule, 2002.
15. Since, the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the petitioner’s SARFAESI application along with all interlocutory applications as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed, in accordance with law.
16. WPA 24891 of 2026 stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
17. Since, no affidavits has been invited all averments made by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been denied by the respondents.
