C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 28.08.26 Suppl.-01 Ct.-07 (S.R.) WPA 23391 of 2026 Bagrajsini Krishi Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debjit Mukherjee … for the petitioners. Mr. Debopriyo Gupto, AGP Mr. Barun Ghosh … for the State. Mr. Dipanjan Datta Ms. Papiya Dutta Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury … for the Bank. 1. This matter has been mentioned on the ground of extreme urgency stating that the Bank is intending to take possession of the secured asset on August 29, 2026 on the strength of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Bankura, on an application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Kolkata by filing S.A. No. 541/2023 and their interlocutory applications for preponement of date of hearing in view of urgency due to the Bank’s threat of taking possession on August 29, 2026 and for passing interim orders are pending before the said Tribunal. 3. It is submitted that although the petitioners’ interlocutory application for interim order was 2 scheduled to be heard under the heading “Put Up” yesterday i.e. on August 27, 2026 yet, the same could not be taken up by the Tribunal due to paucity of time. 4. It is further submitted that the Tribunal would next convene only on Monday i.e. on August 31, 2026 and if, in the meantime the Bank takes possession of the secured assets, the petitioners would be remediless for no fault of the petitioners. 5. Since extreme urgency was pleaded, as above, the matter was directed to be listed upon short notice to the Bank. As the Bank remained unrepresented at the time of call, therefore, Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, learned advocate, who usually represents the Bank of Baroda as its Standing Counsel was requested to be served. 6. Mr. Dutta has been served and he has appeared in the matter today upon taking instructions from the Bank. 7. Mr. Datta, learned advocate appearing for the Bank submits, on instructions, that the Bank has never said that it is going to take possession on 29th August, 2026 itself. It is submitted that, in fact, the notice indicates that the Bank may take possession on any date after the expiry of fifteen days which is post August 29, 2026. Mr. Datta further submits, on instructions, that in any case, the Bank will not take possession till September 3, 2026. 3 8. Learned advocate appearing for the State respondents also submits that they have no instruction as regards the police being requested by the Bank to take possession on August 29, 2026 itself. 9. Since, the petitioners have already filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the same was scheduled to be taken up on August 27, 2026, but could not be taken up due to paucity of time, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall take up the petitioners’ application immediately upon the petitioners filing an application for putting up the records and for preponement of date on August 31, 2026. To be precise, the petitioners shall file another application for putting up of the records and preponement of date on August 31. 2026. Acting on such application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall prepone the hearing of the SARFAESI application and take up the same along with the interlocutory application filed in connection therewith on any date not later than September 3, 2026. 10. Since the Bank itself is not going to take possession of the secured asset till September 03, 2026 as submitted by Mr. Dutta and no mandatory order has been passed by the Court, naturally this will not operate as a precedent and the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall not grant any interim order merely on 4 the basis of the recording of the submission made on behalf of the Bank in today’s order. It will be incumbent on the Debts Recovery Tribunal to arrive at a finding as regards prima facie case of the petitioners and other requirements that must be fulfilled by the petitioners for getting an interim protection. 11. Needless to clarify that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioners’ case and all points are left open to be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in accordance with law. 12. Since no affidavits have been invited, all allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been denied by the respondents. 13. Nothing further is left to be ordered on this writ petition and accordingly, WPA 23391 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)