ANITA KATYAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: This is a disingenuous attempt by persons who obtained money from the bank and think it is their fundamental right not to repay. They cite the scriptures and do not stop at anything to abuse the process. The petitioner herein takes refuge under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in a mischievous attempt to stall the respondent bank from exercising its rights under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. By some convoluted logic, which should not be given any degree of respectability by being noticed in detail, the petitioner refers to the definition section of the 2005 Act and to sections 17, 19 and 27 thereof to suggest that the petitioner's rights in respect of a property whereat the petitioner is entitled to reside, cannot be trodden over by the borrowers of the respondent bank.

(2.) In course of the petitioner citing the said Act of 2005 to save the property that has already been taken possession of by the respondent bank, the petitioner does not leave out the emotional quotient that is so dear to Bollywood. There is a daughter's marriage on the anvil and the petitioner makes out that unless the house is allowed to be used for such purpose, innocent buds may wither away without being allowed to blossom.

(3.) Notwithstanding the festive season, reason can never be on vacation nor allowed to be held to ransom by any misplaced sense of sympathy.