SUBRATA SARKAR Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of certain documents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the rules made thereunder, a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the title deeds of the petitioner deposited with the bank and to enquire into the allegations of the petitioner which was submitted on December 17, 2009 and for other reliefs.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner inter alia is that the private respondent no. 6 herein had introduced him as the Director of Messrs. Calcutta Impex Private Limited, i.e., the respondent no. 5 and approached him for financial assistance. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the said respondent on September 2, 2005 with certain terms and conditions contained therein. As per the agreement the private respondent no. 6 availed himself of the financial assistance of 1.5 crores in the form of a letter of credit and packing credit limit from the United Bank of India in the name of the said company. It was further agreed that the private respondent no. 6 shall pay a sum of Rs. 30 lacs which would be refunded along with simple interest of 12 per cent. per annum. The petitioner also in turn had mortgaged a property at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata ­ 700 040 as collateral security. Subsequently the petitioner came to learn that that the respondent no. 6 had already withdrawn Rs. 50 lacs from the bank by depositing the title deed of the said property without paying Rs. 30 lacs to the petitioner. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the local police station.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner after receiving the same he was surprised to discover that all the documents on the basis of which the respondent bank had acted under the said Act have been forged and contain fictitious signatures of the petitioner. He, through his learned Advocate, served a notice upon the respondent no. 4 and requested him not to take any action on the basis thereof and also initiated criminal proceeding before the competent authority against the respondent no. 6.