A Calcutta High Court judgment dismisses as infructuous a writ petition against proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act due to petitioner inaction, clarifying that courts may decline to entertain stale or unpursued writ petitions in banking and financial sector matters. The case upholds existing legal principles and may be cited as binding authority for similar circumstances in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/23289/2019 of PURNIMA CHAKRABORTY & ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0513132019 |
| Date of Registration | 12-12-2019 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Banking Law / SARFAESI |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ petitions challenging inaction under SARFAESI Section 13(2) remain maintainable if the petitioner takes no steps and the cause is rendered infructuous by lapse of time. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that writ petitions challenging actions under the SARFAESI Act may be dismissed as infructuous where, due to passage of time and lack of petitioner engagement, the matter no longer requires adjudication. The absence of prosecution by the petitioner and subsequent inactivity justifies dismissal. Adjudicatory resources should not be expended on disputes that have effectively lapsed or no longer present a live controversy. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners alleged inaction by the concerned bank in considering their reply to a Section 13(2) notice under the SARFAESI Act and filed a writ petition for redress. However, at hearing, no one appeared on their behalf. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and forums handling SARFAESI-related writ petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that failure of petitioners to prosecute writ proceedings may render such petitions infructuous, especially in the context of SARFAESI litigation.
- Dismissal does not entail any adjudication on merits; absence of follow-up by petitioner leads to summary disposal.
- Counsel should ensure active prosecution and timely steps in SARFAESI challenges or risk dismissal for non-prosecution or infructuousness.
- Useful citation for banks in resisting stale or abandoned challenges to SARFAESI actions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the key relief sought by the petitioners concerned alleged inaction by the bank over a reply to a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
- On the date the matter was called, no one appeared to press the petition; in light of non-appearance and passage of time, the Court found the matter had become infructuous.
- Judicial intervention is unnecessary where the issue no longer requires resolution and has been overtaken by subsequent events or neglect.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Alleged inaction by the concerned bank in considering their reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Respondent:
- No submissions recorded in the judgment, as petitioners/representatives did not appear.
Factual Background
The petitioners had challenged inaction by the concerned bank regarding their reply to a Section 13(2) notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. They approached the Calcutta High Court via writ petition seeking judicial intervention. Upon listing of the matter, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and the Court found the writ petition had been rendered infructuous by passage of time.
Statutory Analysis
The Court referenced Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, concerning issuance of notice by the secured creditor and borrower’s right to reply and have that reply considered.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms and applies established principles regarding maintainability and infructuousness of writ petitions.