TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) The Court : On 26th July, 2018 this Court, upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the bank, arrived at a prima facie finding that an arguable case had been made out by the petitioner. However, as none appeared on behalf of the borrower and the learned Receiver, the matter was adjourned to avail response from the said respondents. Thereafter on 13th September, 2018 the said respondents appeared and the respondent no.5 placed on record a copy of the report filed before the learned Tribunal and supplied copies of the same to all.
(2.) Today, Mr. Rai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, in support of the arguments advanced on 26th July, 2018, has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) (1998) 9 SCC 685 (Action Group Res. In Envrn. and Education Development Authority and Ors v. Sakkya Bai and Others .); (ii) 1992 Supp(2) SCC 29 (East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank) ; (iii) AIR 1952 Calcutta 656 (Assistant Collector of Customs v. Surajmull Nagarmull and Anr.) ; (iv) AIR 1957 SC 529 (Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of India and Anr.) ; (v) (2005) 6 SCC 321 (Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthi) .
(3.) Drawing the attention of this Court to the report filed by the respondent no.5, he submits that in the notice dated 11th April, 2018, the said respondent did incorporate the date on which he was going to visit the property, as detailed in the second paragraph of the said report (in short, the said property) for taking over possession in terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 21st April, 2018. There are also discrepancies in the track consignment report of the postal authorities and a perusal of the same would reveal the learned Receiver's letter dated 11th April, 2018 was delivered to the petitioner.;