DEBABRATA DAS AND ANR AMITESH CHAKRABORTY vs ANTHUM INVESTMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AND ORS — WPA/8192/2026
Case under Sarfaesi Act ,2002 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0157752026
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
WPA/8087/2026
Filing Date
01-04-2026
Registration No
WPA/8192/2026
Registration Date
01-04-2026
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
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DEBABRATA DAS AND ANR AMITESH CHAKRABORTY
Respondent(s)
ANTHUM INVESTMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AND ORS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
NEW MOTION
RETURNABLE MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 04-05-2026 | RETURNABLE MOTION |
Orders
Summary of WPA 8192/2026 The court dismissed the petition filed by Debabrata Das and Amitesh Chakraborty challenging a District Magistrate's order under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners, who defaulted on a ₹43 lakh loan, claimed violation of natural justice but the court held that an effective alternative remedy exists under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The court ruled that writ petitions should not be entertained when statutory remedies are available, and granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if advised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of WPA 8192/2026 The court dismissed the petition filed by Debabrata Das and Amitesh Chakraborty challenging a District Magistrate's order under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners, who defaulted on a ₹43 lakh loan, claimed violation of natural justice but the court held that an effective alternative remedy exists under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The court ruled that writ petitions should not be entertained when statutory remedies are available, and granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if advised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts