Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 31532 (CAL)

DILIP CHANDRA MISTRY v. BANK OF BARODA AND ANR

WPA/13835/2026 · 2026-07-29

Om Narayan Rai

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

29.07.2026 Sl. No.: 24 Court No.7 BM WPA 13835 of 2026 DILIP CHANDRA MISTRY VS BANK OF BARODA AND ANR Mr. S. Nayek Ms. M. Chakraborty Ms. Payel Nath ... for the petitioner Mr. Dipanjan Datta Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury ... for Bank of Baroda/respondent 1. This writ petition alleges arbitrariness on the part of the respondent Bank in not handing over vacant possession of the property stated to have been purchased by the petitioner in an auction conducted under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. Mr. Nayek appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased this property on September 8, 2024 but the petitioner has not been handed over possession of the said property as yet. 3. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the sale certificate that has been annexed to the writ petition will itself show that possession of the property was duly handed over to the petitioner on the same date when the sale certificate was issued. 4. He further submits that there is no subsisting right of the petitioner that may be considered. 2 5. Such objection is however refuted by Mr. Nayek. Mr. Nayek submits that the petitioner has made a representation before the Bank and the same may be directed to be considered. 6. Without going into the merit of the matter, the Bank is left free to consider the representation (Annexure ‘P-3’ at page 23 of the writ petition) submitted by the petitioner, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 7. It is however made clear that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob vs. Director of Mining reported at (2008) 10 SCC 118 the disposal of the representation by the Bank either by way of refusal or otherwise would not give rise of any fresh cause of action or revive any dead or stale claim for the petitioner to bring any action against the bank. 8. With the above observation WPA 13835 of 2026 stands disposed of. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. (Om Narayan Rai, J. )