18-08-2025 Item No.51 Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.11575 of 2025 State Bank of India & Anr. -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. with CAN No.1 of 2025 Mr. Indrajit Bhattacharjee Mr. Moloy Roy Chowdhury …for the petitioners Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, JSC Ms. Tapati Samanta …for the State Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar Mr. Ramendu Agarwal…for respondent nos.13-14 1. Report filed by the District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur dated August 4, 2025 in Court be taken on record. 2. A copy of the order dated April 30, 2024 passed by the Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu in CNR No. JKJM020032882024 (Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mahato v. Sri Balmukund Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) is annexed to the said report. 3. It appears therefrom that the learned Judge was pleased to direct the defendants/non applicants not to create third party interest in the immovable property shown in the commercial agreement dated April 1, 2023 between the parties. The said order was passed subject to objections from the other side. Direction was passed upon the plaintiff/applicant to serve a copy of the order upon the defendants/non applicants. The matter was directed to be put up for further proceeding on May 11, 2024. The matter was thereafter taken up for consideration on several dates. 4. Learned counsels for the private respondents and the writ petitioners both submit that the aforesaid order was passed behind their back. Neither the writ petitioners nor the bank has been impleaded as party defendants in the subject suit. As the property is being dealt with under the Securitization and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the jurisdiction of the civil court is completely barred. The order passed by the civil Court will not be binding upon them. 5. Under Section 14 of the Act, the District Magistrate does not have any adjudicatory power and could not have taken cognizance of the said order placed before the authority. The borrower is the defendant in the suit where order has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 6. It is true that the District Magistrate does not have any adjudicatory power under Section 14 of the 2002 Act; but once the order of a Court is placed before the said authority, the District Magistrate could not have ignored or disregarded the same. The District Magistrate, accordingly, has dismissed the Section 14 application. 7. As the order of the Additional District Judge is staring at the face of the District Magistrate, accordingly, steps ought to be taken to get the interim order vacated; thereafter the District Magistrate can proceed on the prayer made by the bank for taking over possession. 8. It may not be proper for the District Magistrate to 2 pass any order or take any step in violation of the order passed by the Additional District Judge. The same may amount to overreaching or acting contrary to the direction passed by the Additional District Judge. 9. Whether the order of the Additional District Judge will have a binding effect upon the petitioner and/or the private respondents and whether the Additional District Judge could have taken cognizance of the matter is an issue to be decided before the competent forum. Till such issue is decided and the interim order stands varied/vacated/modified or set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the bank ought not to act in violation thereof. 10. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of. Consequentially, the connected application CAN No.1 of 2025) is deemed to be disposed of. 12. Let a copy of the order of the Additional District Judge be served upon the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 14. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J] 3 4