Canara Bank & Anr vs Shri Din Dayal Kayan on 4 April, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Canara Bank & Anr vs Shri Din Dayal Kayan on 4 April, 2025

Author: T.S. Sivagnanam

Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam

OD-2
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               ORIGINAL SIDE

                               APOT/360/2024
                              IA NO: GA/2/2024

                            CANARA BANK & ANR.
                                    VS.
                           SHRI DIN DAYAL KAYAN


BEFORE :

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
     AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Dated : 4TH APRIL, 2025

                                                                        Appearance:
                                                          Ms. Sremoyee Mitra, Adv.
                                                                 ..for Canara Bank


       THE COURT: This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant

Canara Bank challenging the order dated 9 th July, 2024 in WPO 580 of 2024.

The said writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging a notice issued

under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

Learned Writ Court came to the conclusion that the notice impugned in

the writ petition issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is barred

under Section 36 of the Act and Article 62 of the Schedule of the Limitation

Act.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant bank

that during the pendency of the appeal, an one-time settlement offer was made

to the respondent-writ petitioner, which was accepted by the respondent-writ
2

petitioner and the entire amount as demanded by the appellant bank in the

one-time settlement proposal was paid by the respondent-writ petitioner. To

the said effect, a communication has been issued by the Manager, Recovery

and Legal Section, Regional Office-1, Agra of the appellant bank.

In the light of the subsequent development, nothing survives for

adjudication in this appeal. Nonetheless, since a question of law is involved in

this appeal, the question has to be necessarily left open.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the one-

time settlement proposal offered by the appellant bank having been accepted

by the respondent-writ petitioner, nothing further survives for adjudication.

As observed above, the questions of law raised in this appeal are left

open.

The application IA No: GA/2/2024 also stands disposed of.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)

(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)

sm/SN