25.09.2026 Sl. No. 17 Ct No. 446 SG WPA 27089 of 2026 Md. Nazir Vs The Indian Bank & Ors. Mr. Md. Shah Jahan Hossain, Mrs. Samjida Sultana, Mr. Souvik Shaw. …for the petitioner Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh, Mrs. Madhu Shaw, Ms. Anjali Mishra. …for respondent Bank 1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the legality and tenability of the sale notice dated 18th August, 2026 issued by the Indian Bank, being the secured creditor, in respect of residential Flat No. S-4, situated on the second floor of Block-A at premises No. 25A, M.G. Road, Ward No. 4, Kolkata-63 (hereinafter referred to as the “secured asset”). 2. Mr. Hossain, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner purchased the said flat from the private respondent no. 4 upon payment of the entire consideration money and was thereafter put into possession thereof. Prior to the purchase, the petitioner caused a thorough search to be made in the office of the concerned District Sub- Registrar, but did not find any encumbrance or other adverse entry affecting the said property. The petitioner also found that the said flat stood mutated in the name of the private respondent no. 4 in the assessment register of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Acting bona fide and on the belief that 2 the said property was free from any encumbrance, the petitioner proceeded to purchase the same. 3. However, he submits, subsequently, the respondent- Bank came to the petitioner’s flat and affixed the sale notice thereon. Upon enquiry, the petitioner was informed by the Bank that his vendor had availed of a loan from the Bank but had subsequently committed default in repayment thereof and consequently, the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Mr. Hossain submits that it is surprising that the original deed of conveyance continued to remain in the custody of the petitioner’s vendor and that the said original deed, along with the relevant chain deeds, was subsequently handed over to the petitioner. He submits that it remains unexplained as to how, despite the original deed of conveyance being in the custody of the borrower, a financial institution such as respondent no. 1 could have sanctioned the loan and/or extended any credit facility to the borrower against the said property. According to him, the entire action taken by the respondent-Bank is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and, therefore, furnishes sufficient ground for interference. 4. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the Bank, vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that, from the deed of conveyance under which the petitioner claims to have purchased the secured asset, it transpires that the petitioner purchased the said property on 26th December, 2024, whereas the borrower, namely, private respondent no. 4, had created an equitable mortgage in respect of the said property in favour of the Bank on 11th October, 2023. Thus, according to him, the petitioner purchased the property at 3 a point of time when the same already stood mortgaged in favour of the respondent-Bank. He contends that as the borrower committed default in repayment of the loan, the secured creditor proceeded against the secured asset in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, it is submitted that the action taken by the Bank cannot be faulted with. 5. Mr. Singh has placed reliance upon two documents and submits that the original deed of conveyance standing in the name of the borrower had been deposited with the Bank prior to the sanction and disbursement of the loan facility. He further submits that the petitioner could have approached the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal by preferring an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, or, could have approached the appropriate civil forum for redressal of his grievance. The documents produced on behalf of the respondents are taken on record. 6. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 7. The record would reveal that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, essentially seeking to interdict the recovery proceedings initiated by the secured creditor in respect of the secured asset. On the facts of the present case, it may be noted that the materials on record indicate that the petitioner purchased the secured asset at a point of time when his vendor had already created an equitable mortgage in respect thereof in favour of the respondent-Bank. The petitioner, therefore, has an efficacious statutory remedy available to him under Section 17 of the 4 SARFAESI Act, 2002, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, being a person aggrieved by the measures taken by the secured creditor. He may also avail such other remedy as may be available to him before the competent civil forum, in accordance with law. 8. It would not be out of context to observe that the issue is no longer res integra that ordinarily a writ petition ought not to be entertained where the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available to him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petitions seeking, in substance, to stall recovery proceedings initiated by secured creditors. In this regard, useful reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 INSC 297 (PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank & Ors.). 9. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, I find no justification to interfere with the impugned sale notice. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 10. However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the petitioners from approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 11. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)