- (1.) The subject matter of appeal relates to an order of the learned Single Judge refusing to entertain the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner with a prayer to release the movable and immovable assets not hypothecated and mortgaged to the respondent bank, to allow him to operate the locker with the Bank and give appropriate accounts of loan amount Rs.9,75,152.37 after adjustment of matured value of fixed deposits Rs.4,40,00 and for releasing all security assets held since 11th December, 2003 on complete realization of the loan of Rs.9,75,152.37. The appeal arose against the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2012.
(2.) The writ petitioner was carrying on business in the name of East India Chemical Products and East India Trading Company. State Bank of India Ektiashal Branch sanctioned credit facilities in favour of East India Trading Company to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- against STDR value Rs.50,900/- and Rs.75,000/- as collateral security with equitable mortgage property of Hyderpara in the District of Jalpaiguri. Similarly, credit facilities were also sanctioned by the Bank Authorities in favour of East India Chemical Products i.e. cash credit to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, clean medium loan to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/- and medium term loan for Rs.95,000/- against STDR of Rs.1,00,000/- as collateral security and by creating equitable mortgage in respect of 30 cottah of land at Dabgram in the District of Jalpaiguri. A loan of Rs.40,000/- was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for purchasing a motor cycle. The petitioner failed to repay the aforementioned loans and the Bank issued a notice upon the petitioner under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act with regard to outstanding dues in the name of East India Trading Company and took over the possession of mortgaged property at Hyderpara on 13th December, 2003. Writ petition being W.P. No.1384 (W) 2004 was moved, inter alia, challenging the steps taken by the Bank Authorities under the SARFAESI Act. The writ petition was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 21st September, 2004 giving opportunity to petitioner to apply before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and an order was also passed directing the Bank to return the house hold articles of the petitioner lying with the Bank. Contempt application was filed for non-compliance of the order. Special Officer was appointed and ultimately non-mortgage goods were returned by the Bank to the petitioner. Thereafter contempt application was filed which was withdrawn with leave to file afresh. Pursuant to leave granted, another contempt application was filed and this Hon'ble Court directed Inspector General of Police (N) to submit a detail report as regards the writ petitioner's complaint. Chief Manager State Bank of India was also directed look into the matter and make an enquiry and file a report before this Court. Reports were filed stating that the goods have already been returned in terms of the order and accordingly third contempt application was also dismissed. It was clarified in the order that the said order would not stand in the way of the petitioner to take any further step before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
(3.) Bank Authority issued sale notice in respect of secured assets in question and the said notice was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.3624 (W) of 2007 before this Court the said writ petition was again dismissed on 4th July, 2008 on the ground that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench also dismissed the appeal on 25th September, 2008 with a direction that the petitioner will be liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law. This is the third writ application moved by the writ petitioner, inter alia, praying for return of non-mortgage goods, permission to operate his locker, settlement of his accounts and other reliefs. One application being C.A.N. No.6732 of 2012 was also filed praying for interim direction to Bank to return keys of the locker to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Single Judge upon hearing the parties dismissed the petition holding that the issues were decided in the earlier writ petitions and nothing new is there to decide. The writ petition is barred by principles of res judicata.;