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.
