SHILTU SHAW Vs. BANK OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that as the representation dated 23rd May, 2013 submitted by the petitioner inter alia praying for settlement of the loan account was not considered by the Bank of India (in short, the bank), the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P 8313(W) of 2018. By an order dated 24th July, 2018, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent no.3 to consider the petitioner's representation upon granting an opportunity of hearing and to take a decision, in accordance with law and to communicate the same to the petitioner. The said respondent no.3 was also directed to complete such exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. The said order was duly communicated to the respondent no.3 by a letter dated 27th August, 2018 but without complying with the said order, the bank authorities forcibly took possession of the petitioner's vehicle on 25th October, 2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation on 26th October, 2018 but the same was also not considered.

(2.) According to Mr. Samanta, the vehicle was in the possession of the petitioner on the date this Court passed the order in the earlier writ petition. The order was passed in presence of the learned advocate representing the bank and the same was also communicated to the respondent no.3. Without complying with the directions contained in the said order dated 24th July, 2018, the bank took possession of the vehicle in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

(3.) Mr. Pal Choudhuri, learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that after taking possession of the vehicle on 25th October, 2018, the petitioner was asked to appear for a hearing but he denied. Such contention has been disputed by Mr. Samanta.