Item No.16 07.04.2026 Court. No. 12 GB MAT 477 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Shilpi Barman & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Ms. Kakali Samajpaty, Mr. Subir Hazra, Ms. Payel Neogi, Ms. Sabina Khatun … for the Appellants. Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Mr. Kripa Kami … for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7. Mr. Biplab Guha, Mr. Tapas Kumar Das … for the State. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated March 11, 2026, passed in WPA No.4318 of 2016. 2. The learned advocate submits that the appellants are aggrieved on the following grounds: A) Although the learned trial Judge had initially requested the financial institution to settle the matter with the appellant, the financial institution failed to do so. B) The order of dismissal of the writ petition did not reflect the initial order of His Lordship. C) The financial institution had agreed to a settlement at Rs.19 lakhs and odd but, once the writ petition was dismissed, the officials refuse to settle. 3. The challenge to the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, are pending before the DRT at the instance of the appellant and the order refusing to 2 pass an interim protection is under challenge in the DRAT. It is alleged that the officials of the financial institution have been threatening the appellants with dire consequences and also tried to forcefully take over possession without resorting to the provisions of law. 4. From the order impugned, we find that His Lordship recorded that the appellants were at liberty to approach the alternative forum, if permitted by law. The challenge to the writ petition was a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. His Lordship also recorded that, although the appellants were ready and willing to settle at Rs.17,00,000/-, the financial institution was not. Under such circumstances, the writ petition was not entertained. 5. Although the appellants’ contention is that the claim would be below Rs.20,00,000/- and as such, the SARFAESI proceeding could not have been initiated, the financial institution submits that the total dues as on date would be more than Rs.23,00,000/-. These disputed questions cannot be decided by a writ court and we are informed that proceedings are already pending before the learned DRT. These issues can be raised before the DRT. If the initial demand was below Rs. 20,00,000/- in that event the matter can be agitated before the DRT. 6. Even if His Lordship had tried to impress upon the financial institution to settle the matter, we are of the view that a court cannot force the financial 3 institution to agree to the amount proposed by the appellants. Secondly, the learned Judge rightly held that the available remedy of the appellant was before the DRT. Thus, the appellants have ample scope to approach the said tribunal in the pending proceedings for its reliefs. Thirdly, the financial institution has a right to take over possession upon proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. We are informed that a proceeding under Section 14 is already pending. The right of the borrower to take over possession upon taking steps under the SARFAESI Act, cannot be curtailed. 7. With the above observations, the appeal and the connected applications are disposed of. 8. However, we leave it open to the parties to settle the dispute, if they so desire. 9. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected applications are dismissed. 10. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)