Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 19th February, 2014 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata (hereafter the CMM) in exercise of power conferred by Section 14 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter "the Act"). It appears from the records of Application No. 43/13, being the application under Section 14 of the Act filed by the secured creditor, that the same was presented before the CMM on 25th November, 2013. The affidavit accompanying the application declared that no case was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and there was no stay order from any Court of law against the secured creditor in respect of immovable secured assets mentioned in the schedule of the application.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that in December, 2013, the petitioners had moved an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -1, Kolkata (hereafter the Tribunal), registered as SA No. 84 of 2013, and on 16th December, 2013, the Tribunal had passed an order reading, inter alia, as follows: "18. In the above circumstances, it is ordered that ORDER (a) The applicant is directed to deposit Rs. 50 lacs in addition to the Rs. 1.55 crore already deposited with the Bank within 3 weeks time with a detailed proposal stating out the modalities of payment and source of fund to the Bank. (b) Upon such proposal is being received along with Rs. 50 lacs within the time as mentioned above, the local Bank authority would place the matter before the competent authority of the Bank for their consideration. The competent authority of the Bank are directed to passed a reasoned order and communicate the same to the Applicants and till such time the Bank should not take any coercive action against the secured assets. (c) All other issues are kept open. (d) Let the matter be fixed for further hearing on 24.1.2014." I have been informed that the said order has been carried in appeal by the secured creditor before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal but no stay has since been obtained.
(3.) IT is further not in dispute that in terms of the Tribunal's order, deposit of Rs. 50 lacs was made and that the proposal for one time settlement which had been submitted, is yet to be disposed of by the secured creditor.;