21.08.2026 Item No.11 (DL) Court No.07 S.R. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 22390 of 2026 Pinky Singh & Ors. -Vs- State Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Mr. Balarko Sen, Mr. Amit Nath. …for the petitioners. Ms. Deblina Lahiri, Mr. Mrinmoy Chatterjee. …for the respondent Bank. Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Ms. Shetparna Roy. …for the State. 1. This writ petition assails the action taken by the respondent no. 1 Bank under the relevant provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. The petitioners claim to be flat owners of 32A, Mahendra Srimani Street, Kolkata 700 009. It is their case that they have purchased flats from one Dr. Ashim Kumar Das by separate deeds of conveyance upon obtaining loans from various Banks, whose authorized officers have been arrayed as respondent nos. 8 to 11 in this writ petition. 2 3. The petitioners claim to have purchased the properties on various dates in the years 2019 and 2020. 4. They are presently aggrieved by a notice dated August 12, 2026 issued by the Bank to the respondent nos. 4 and 5, which the petitioners allege to have been affixed on the building that houses the petitioners‟ flats. 5. The said notice requests the addressees to vacate the property in terms of an order dated January 30, 2019 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta. 6. The petitioners approached the Bank on August 17, 2026 with a representation which forms Annexure –„P4‟ to the writ petition (at page 210 to 213 thereof) but the same was not heeded. 7. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the respective facts for value without notice of any transaction or agreement between the Bank and the respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that the petitioners are neither the 3 borrowers nor the guarantors and that the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the respondent nos. 4 and 5. 9. It is further submitted that for the purpose of purchasing their respective flats, the petitioners have obtained credit facilities from different Banks (whose authorised officers have been arrayed as respondent nos. 8 to 11) and that if there had been any indication of the property having been mortgaged with the respondent no. 1, the said Bank would not have provided credit facilities to the petitioners. 10. Mr. Mukherjee, invites the attention of this Court to the “Asset Based Search Report” obtained from the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India website/portal (“hereafter CERSAI) (annexure „P2‟ at page 206 and 207 of the writ petition) to demonstrate that the subject property is not yet registered with CERSAI and that being so, the action of the Bank under the 2002 Act is wholly without jurisdiction. 11. It is further submitted that the petitioners being innocent purchasers of the said flats have done whatever was doable at their end and have purchased flats by 4 expending their hard and money. He asserts that since the petitioners have not failed in carrying out due diligence, therefore the petitioners should not be punished for breach of financial discipline, if at all any, by the respondent nos. 4 and 5. 12. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that there is hardly any time left for the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and as such, the Court should grant limited interim relief to the petitioners so as to enable them to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the meantime. 13. Mr. Mukherjee asserts that despite representation having been made by the petitioners, they got a call from the jurisdictional Police Station in the night of August 19, 2026 informing them that the Police would implement the order dated January 30, 2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 14. Ms. Lahiri, learned advocate appearing for the Bank opposes the writ petition by taking a preliminary objection saying that the writ petition should not be entertained. 15. It is submitted that the assertion that since the petitioners would lose possession 5 before approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal and would, therefore, be remediless, cannot be successfully urged a ground for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the scheme of the 2002 Act provides for a remedy after dispossession only. 16. It is submitted that once a notice under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act is issued by the Bank, the property gets injuncted under the provisions of Section 13(2) and, therefore, any step taken after issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) would be subject to the steps taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act. 17. In support of such contention, she relies on a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Transcore –Vs- Union of India & Anr., reported at (2008) 1 SCC 125. 18. It is next submitted that the notice under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act was issued on May 07, 2014. Attention of this Court is invited to the recitals of the deed of conveyance dated July 12, 2019 (Annexure „P-1‟) to demonstrate that the vendor of the petitioners purchased the property only on January 21, 2016 i.e. post issuance of the notice under 6 Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act. It is submitted that the petitioners who purchased the property only in 2019 and 2020 from their vendor who purchased it post the notice under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act, cannot prevent the Bank from proceeding under the said Act, in view of the fact that the sale itself gets clouded by statutory injunction. 19. PHR Invent Educational Society –Vs- UCO Bank & Ors., reported at (2024) 6 SCC 579 is pressed into service to contend that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken, itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. 20. She places on record another Asset Based Search Report obtained from CERSAI to demonstrate that assets based search in respect of the property clearly reveals CERSAI registration of the property over which SARFAESI action has been taken by the Bank. 21. Another judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangal Rajendra Kamthe –Vs- Tahsldar, Purandhar 7 & Ors., reported at 2026 SCC Online SC 297 is placed to argue that once the High Court refrains from entertaining an application and refuses to exercise discretionary jurisdiction on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy, no order in the nature of an interim relief can be passed allowing the same to operate till such time, the aggrieved petitioner approaches the alternative forum. 22. Ms. Lahiri also produces a copy of the order dated January 30, 2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 116 of 2015 and submits that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had directed physical possession of the secured asset to be handed over to the respondent bank, who is the secured creditor upon being satisfied with the Bank‟s affidavit. It is submitted that such order is being implemented only after an order was passed by this Court on July 20, 2026 in WPA 15803 of 2026 directing the respondent State authorities to implement the order dated January 30, 2019. 23. She further hands up to Court a letter dated August 17, 2026 addressed by the writ petitioners to the Chief Manager of the State 8 Bank of India /respondent no.1 and submits that the petitioners requested the respondent Bank not to take possession of the flats and give the petitioners reasonable time to “settle on this issue”. It is submitted that in view of such request, the Bank refrained from taking possession on August 17, 2025, which was the scheduled date for taking over possession and the action was postponed. 24. Ms. Lahiri further submits that the respondent Bank officials have already reached the Police Station for the purpose of taking assistance of police in order to take possession. 25. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits in reply, that the Bank did not postpone the action of taking possession at the request of the petitioners but, in fact, the bank was unable to take possession in view of the inclement weather. It is further submitted that the order, the petitioners were not made parties in the writ petition whereon the order dated July 20, 2026 was passed. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the petitioners are not privy to the contract that may be there between the respondent Bank and the respondent nos.4 and 5. 9 26. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material-on-record. 27. From the material-on-record, it is evident that an order dated January 30, 2019 has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 116 of 2015 (being an application under Section 14 of the 2002 Act). 28. The said order remained unimplemented till an order dated July 20, 2026 was passed by this Court. 29. While the petitioners contend that the respondent Bank has not completed CERSAI registration of the immovable property that from secured asset of the Bank, the respondent Bank has produced in Court another asset based search report, which shows that CERSAI registration has been done. In such view of the matter, prima facie, the Bank‟s action does not appear to be without jurisdiction. 30. It is not in dispute that the petitioners got notice of the action of the Bank at least on August 13, 2026 when the notice requesting the respondent nos.4 and 5 to vacate the property was affixed on the subject property. 10 31. The petitioners have admittedly approached the respondent Bank by way of two representations on August 17, 2026. Out of the said two representations that have been made to the Bank one forms Annexure „P-4‟ to this writ petition and the other which has not been annexed to the writ petition and a copy whereof has been handed up to Court by the Bank reveals that the petitioners have requested the Bank “to take note of the entire facts as we have stated in our notice and give us reasonable time to settle on this issue and further requesting you to restrain your self from taking any drastic measure to evict us from our possession into our respective flats”. 32. This writ petition was filed on August 20, 2026 upon taking leave of this Court for it to be listed today. If there was such a pressing urgency the petitioners should have moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal immediately after the affixation of the notice. While it cannot be said that the petitioners‟ approach is belated or delayed but at the same time it can also not be denied that if the petitioners could approach the Bank on August 17, 2026 and this Court on August 20, 2026 allegedly upon getting a call from police on August 19, 2026 then the 11 petitioners could definitely have approached the DRT also upon getting the notice on August 13, 2026. 33. The judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in PHR Invent Educational Society (supra) has reiterated that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions against orders or actions which can be assailed before the forum created by the very statute under which the impugned action is taken. The said judgment has followed a long line of precedents including United Bank of India –Vs- Satyawati Tandon, reported at (2010)8 SCC 110. It is not the petitioners‟ case that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not functional for any reason. 34. The petitioners have also not been able to make out any case that falls within any of the well settled exceptions justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction as indicated in PHR Invent Educational Society (supra) in the following words:- “37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; 12 (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.” 35. This Court is therefore unable to entertain this writ petition. 36. The petitioners‟ prayer to pass an interim order that may operate till the time the petitioners approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal can also not be entertained in view of the mandate of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mangal Rajendra Kamthe –Vs- Tahsldar, Purandhar & Ors. reported at 2026 SCC Online SC 297 reiterating the dictum of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa –Vs- Madan Gopal Rungta reported at AIR 1952 SC 12. 37. Since this Court is not entertaining this writ petition, the other points as regards the petitioners not being privy to the contract between the respondent no. 1 Bank and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 are not being dealt 13 with as that would require entering into the merits. However, for the purpose of this writ petition, it can be observed that the said point is not relevant as the security interest in the property was, prima facie, created much prior to the petitioners purchasing the property in question. 38. Although, the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, yet, this Court feels that since it is the petitioners‟ case that they are bonafide purchasers for value without notice the petitioners may take the liberty of approaching the bank once again with a request to defer the date of taking possession. 39. It may be expected that if the petitioners approach the bank the bank will look into such request and consider the same in the right earnest. 40. If the petitioners file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the 2002 Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is requested to take up the same expeditiously and consider the same on merits upon issuing notice to the respondent bank and to pass appropriate order, in accordance 14 with law, without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. 41. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioners‟ case and the counter case of the bank and all observations made hereinabove are prima facie and tentative restricted only for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition. 42. With the above observations, WPA 22390 of 2026 stands disposed of. No costs. 43. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)