Complaint Case No. CC/08/28. Case: Sumitra Enterprise and Ors. Vs The Chairman, Bank of India and Ors.. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberComplaint Case No. CC/08/28
CounselFor Appellant: Aloke Mukhopadhyay and Asim Kumar Ghatak, Advocates and For Respondents: S.K. Sengupta and S.N. Dutta, Advocates
JudgesDebasis Bhattacharya, (Presiding Member) and Jagannath Bag, Member
IssueSecuritisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4)
Judgement DateJanuary 09, 2017
CourtWest Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Debasis Bhattacharya, (Presiding Member), (Kolkata)

  1. Brief facts of the complaint case are that on the intervening night of 04/05-06-2006, a devastating fire broke out at the premises of the firm of the Complainants and adjacent premises of other firms causing grave damage to business stock and furniture & fixtures. Necessary GD in this regard was made before the local Police Station on 05-06-2006 being GDE No. 134. Complainants also informed the matter to the bank authorities and lodged claim with the OP Insurance Company on 30-06-2006. On the basis of such information, one Surveyor and some officials of the Insurance Company visited the spot on 09-06-2006 and also on other subsequent dates. Complainants submitted necessary documents to the Surveyor as per demand. However, the OP Insurance Company, despite receipt of survey report in the year 2007 itself, sat tight over the claim of the Complainants for long. Meanwhile, the OP Bank authorities, without appreciating the predicaments of the Complainants, in a high handed manner took possession of the business property of the Complainants. Hence, the case.

  2. OP Nos. 1 to 3 contested the case by filing W.V., wherein they denied all the material allegations of the complaint. Further case of these OPs is that M/s. Amrit Flour Mill, M/s. Sankar Enterprise, M/s. Shib Shankar Oil Mill and M/s. Sumitra Enterprise availed of loans and advances from the OP No. 3 against hypothecation of stock, machinery, movable assets, as also immovable properties. The landed property lying and situated at Rupnarayanpur measuring 7 Cottahs 13 Chittacks stands in the names of Sumitra Agarwal, Shankar Agarwal and Phuli Devi by means of 3 separate Title Deeds. Residential building, shop room and factory were constructed/installed on the aforesaid landed properties. Equitable mortgage of the land and building, along with other landed properties in the names of Shankar Agarwal, Sumitra Agarwal, Pinki Agarwal and Amrit Agarwal was created pertaining to their own land to secure loans and advances granted to the above named 4 borrowers. Sri Shankar Agarwal, by submitting an affidavit stated that his mother Phuli Devi was dead and he inherited the property from his mother. Accordingly, Shankar Agarwal created mortgage of the above immovable property purchased by Phuli Devi by depositing original Title Deed in the name of his mother (Phuli Devi) including Record of Right and original affidavit dated 11-05-2004 declaring himself as the owner of the said property. It is the further case of these OPs that the Complainants committed default in payment of dues and violated the terms and conditions on the basis of which loans and advances were sanctioned. Thus the said loan became highly irregular and the OP classified the said account as Non Performing Assets as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India on 25-01-2007. To save deterioration in the value and quality of the said hypothecated and mortgaged securities, the borrowers were served notices under the provisions of Sec. 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and symbolic possession of the aforesaid movable and immovable properties was taken over...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT