GITA BISWAS ZUBEEN PANDEY vs ICICI BANK LIMITED AND ORS — WPA/5397/2026
Case under Sarfaesi Act ,2002 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0109582026
Next Hearing
06th March 2026
Filing Number
WPA/5500/2026
Filing Date
06-03-2026
Registration No
WPA/5397/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Residuary ( 26 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
11th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GITA BISWAS ZUBEEN PANDEY
Respondent(s)
ICICI BANK LIMITED AND ORS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
NEW MOTION
RETURNABLE MOTION
RETURNABLE MOTION
MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 25-03-2026 | RETURNABLE MOTION |
| 13-04-2026 | RETURNABLE MOTION |
| 09-03-2026 | MOTION |
Orders
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Gita Biswas against ICICI Bank's SARFAESI proceedings on grounds of maintainability, holding that the petitioner has an adequate statutory alternative remedy under Sections 17-18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal). The court found that over Rs. 1.5 crores in aggregate dues remained outstanding across ten loan accounts and that allowing the writ petition would unnecessarily procrastinate recovery proceedings contrary to public interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Gita Biswas against ICICI Bank's SARFAESI proceedings on grounds of maintainability, holding that the petitioner has an adequate statutory alternative remedy under Sections 17-18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal). The court found that over Rs. 1.5 crores in aggregate dues remained outstanding across ten loan accounts and that allowing the writ petition would unnecessarily procrastinate recovery proceedings contrary to public interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts