Calcutta High Court Declines Writ Jurisdiction Over SARFAESI Inventory Disputes, Relegates Matter to DRT

The intersection of writ jurisdiction and the statutory remedies provided under specialized legislation often presents complex procedural questions for aggrieved parties. In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Calcutta High Court reinforced the principle that factual disputes arising from the enforcement of security interests—specifically concerning the preparation of inventories and panchanamas—must be adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) rather than through writ petitions.

This comprehensive legal analysis examines the judgment delivered in the case of Buddhadeb Samanta Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited And Ors., where the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging alleged omissions in an inventory prepared by a secured creditor. The Court emphasized that the DRT possesses the requisite authority and procedural framework to conduct factual inquiries, which cannot be effectively undertaken by a High Court relying solely on affidavit evidence.

Background of the Dispute

The factual matrix of the case revolves around credit facilities availed by the petitioner (acting in the capacity of an assessee/borrower) from the respondent bank (secured creditor). To secure the repayment of these financial obligations, the petitioner created an equitable mortgage in favor of the bank. The secured asset in question comprised a property measuring exactly 85 decimal of land situated in Mouza -Kalinagar(Sener Chak), Post Office-Kak Kalinagar, Police Station Kakdwip under Harwood Point Coastal Police Station.

Following an alleged default in the repayment of the credit facilities, the secured creditor invoked its statutory powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The bank initiated recovery measures, which ultimately culminated in the sale of the mortgaged secured asset through a public auction conducted in accordance with the provisions of the 2002 Act.

Aggrieved by the recovery measures and the subsequent auction sale, the petitioner sought statutory recourse by filing an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.3, Kolkata. This application was registered as SA 232 of 2026, filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

The Core Grievance: Omissions in the Inventory

While the substantive challenge to the auction sale was pending before the DRT, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court via a writ petition (WPA 24891 of 2026). The primary contention raised before the High Court pertained to the physical possession process executed by the bank.

The petitioner alleged that the inventory and Panchanama prepared by the authorized officer of the bank during the takeover of the property were fundamentally flawed. Specifically, it was argued that the bank had deliberately omitted crucial movable assets situated on the secured property, namely three buses and an underground oil reservoir.