ANNAPURNA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner raises an interesting question relating to Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner says that notwithstanding the expression "any person" appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 17, it would appear from sub-section (3) thereof that it is only a borrower, within the definition of the said Act, who may effectively exercise the right of appeal under section 17 of the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of a land at premises No. 384/1, Sahara sukanta Nagar within the Madhyamgram municipality near the airport. The petitioner says that the land measuring 4 cottah and a bit had been gifted by her brother under a registered document. The land has apparently been mutated in favour of the petitioner by the Madhyamgram Municipality and the petitioner has put up a building thereat upon obtaining due sanction of a plan therefor. The G + 2 building has five flats and two shop rooms. It appears from the petition that there must have been a development agreement as the petitioner refers to one flat on the second floor as being the owner's allocation. The petitioner claims to be entitled to possession of such flat.

(3.) THE petition narrates that on March 27, 2009 when the petitioner was away in hooghly she received a call from the occupant of the neighbouring flat that officials of the respondent bank had apparently taken possession of her flat by affixing a notice under Section 13 (4) of the said Act of 2002 on the front door of the flat and by sealing the main entrance by putting padlocks thereon. The petition speaks of the respondent Nos. 13 and 14 having obtained credit facilities from the bank. The petitioner says that it is only on March 31, 2009, following a visit to the Wood Street Branch of icici Bank, that the petitioner was informed that the borrowers had obtained the credit facilities against such flat as security. The bank officials produced a deed of conveyance and it is the petitioner's case that both the photograph and the signature of the petitioner in the purported document did not match. The petitioner says that the document is forged or has been manufactured,