19.08.2026 Item No.11 (DL) Court No.7 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 20561 of 2026 Sandip Das -Vs- State of Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Debasish Ghosh, Mr. Lalit Baid, Ms. Sanjana Shaw, Mr. Kuldip Das. …. for the petitioner. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. This writ petition assails an order dated February 26, 2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta on an application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 08 of 2026. 3. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of the property that has been mortgaged with the bank for the purpose of securing credit facility obtained by the respondent no.3 from the bank. 4. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner has been occupying the subject property as a tenant since 2018. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 2 neither the borrower nor the guarantor and therefore, the petitioner has no efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 6. Section 17 of the 2002 Act is wide enough to entertain applications filed by any person aggrieved by the actions taken by the bank under the 2002 Act. A specific provision was also incorporated in the said section by the 2016 Amendment thereby affording tenants in respect of the mortgaged property to approach the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal. 7. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not as efficacious as it should have been. 8. An order passed under Section 14 of the 2002 Act is in effect a step taken under Section 13(4) of the said Act and as such, the same is amenable to the jurisdiction of the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal. In fact, the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of 2002 Act which has been registered as S.A. 153 of 2026. 9. In such view of the matter, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated February 26, 2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the bank’s application under Section 14 of the 2002 Act 3 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in accordance with law. 10. The petitioner will be entitled to pray for preponement of the date for hearing of its SARFAESI Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata by way of appropriate application. If such an application is made, the said Tribunal shall consider the petitioner’s application and prepone the date upon due notice to all the parties. The Debts Recovery Tribunal is requested to dispose of the petitioner’s application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a month from the date of preponment. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and all points are left open to be urged before and decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata in accordance with law. 12. With the above observations, WPA 20561 of 2026 stands disposed of. No costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)