RABIUL ISLAM AND ANR. SHAHAN SHAH vs ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LTD AND ORS. — MAT/849/2026
Case under Police Act ,1861 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 22nd May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0216962026
Next Hearing
18th May 2026
Filing Number
MAT/857/2026
Filing Date
13-05-2026
Registration No
MAT/849/2026
Registration Date
13-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL , HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Coram
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL , HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
POLICE INACTION/ACTION ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
STAMP REPORTER (SR) SECTION
Decision Date
22nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RABIUL ISLAM AND ANR. SHAHAN SHAH
NAAZ ISLAM
Respondent(s)
ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LTD AND ORS.
BARNANA SEN
STATE OF W.B.
THE SUPDT. OF POLICE BENIAPUKUR
THE ADDL. SUPDT. OF POLICE BENIAPUKUR
THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BENIAPUKUR
THE I.C. BENIAPUKUR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL , HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: MAT/849/2026 The appellants challenged a Single Judge's order granting possession protection to Aditya Birla Housing Finance (secured creditor). The court granted leave to appeal and condoned a 72-day filing delay. By mutual consent, the parties reached consensus: the appellants can file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking return of their movable property from the mortgaged premises, with the DRT to decide independently without being bound by the Single Judge's order. The appeal was disposed of reserving liberty for appellants to pursue their movable property claim before the Tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MAT/849/2026 The appellants challenged a Single Judge's order granting possession protection to Aditya Birla Housing Finance (secured creditor). The court granted leave to appeal and condoned a 72-day filing delay. By mutual consent, the parties reached consensus: the appellants can file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking return of their movable property from the mortgaged premises, with the DRT to decide independently without being bound by the Single Judge's order. The appeal was disposed of reserving liberty for appellants to pursue their movable property claim before the Tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts