Sk. Halim Vs Bank of Baroda & Anr. (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: Calcutta High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an auction notice issued by Bank of Baroda on 7 July 2025 for recovery of a loan by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner was aggrieved by the Bank’s steps to sell the secured asset for recovery of the outstanding loan amount.
The High Court observed that under the statutory framework of the SARFAESI Act, a person aggrieved by measures taken by a bank for recovery of the loan has a remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Court noted that nearly one month had elapsed from the date of the sale notice and that the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal for appropriate relief. Bank of Baroda was not represented before the High Court on the date of hearing and, consequently, the Court was not aware whether the proposed sale had already fructified.
In these circumstances, instead of examining the challenge to the auction proceedings in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court disposed of the petition while expressly preserving the petitioner’s right to challenge the steps taken by the Bank for sale of the secured asset before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stood disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner be retained with the records.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the auction notice published by the Bank of Baroda on 7th July, 2025 to recover the loan amount by invoking provision of the SARFAESI Act.
3. According to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by any steps taken by the Bank to recover the loan amount may approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for relief.
4. Nearly a month has elapsed from the date of the sale notice. The petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal for necessary relief.
5. The Bank is not represented today. The Court is not aware as to whether the sale has fructified or not.
6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of by observing that it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the steps taken by the Bank to sell the secured asset before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of.
8. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.
