Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 761
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, Duppala Venkata Ramana, JJ.
Gayatri Cotton Mills – Petitioner
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No.14983 of 2023
Decided On : 21-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Venkata Durga Rao Anantha
For the Respondent: S Satyanarayana Moorthy
Substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is sufficient, and the court's jurisdiction in SARFAESI matters is limited.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - SARFAESI Act - Section 14, Section 13(2) - The court discussed the requirements of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and emphasized substantial compliance with the law. The court also highlighted the limitations of its jurisdiction in interfering with SARFAESI matters.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition was filed seeking various reliefs including the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to set aside orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and related warrants under the SARFAESI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in the affidavit filed before the CJM. The court also noted that the classification of the account as an NPA and the non-registration of the security had already been addressed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
Issues: The issues raised included the validity of warrants issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, compliance with the affidavit requirements, and the classification of the account as an NPA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and highlighted the limitations of the court's jurisdiction in interfering with SARFAESI matters.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the court cautioned against the High Court's interference in SARFAESI matters.
ORDER :
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief :
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
a) “Writ of Certiorari” calling for the entire records in Crl.M.P.No.122/2023, dated 07.06.2023 and the entire records of Cri.Misc.36/2021 relating to the orders passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Guntur, and related warrants issued to the advocate commissioners in respect of above 2 cases to take physical possession of the same schedule properties;
b) To pass necessary orders and set aside the orders passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.122/2023m dt.07.06.2023 and set aside 5 warrants issued to the 5 advocate commissioners without referring to the orders under which the warrants are issued on the same properties on which there is already an earlier order dated 20.03.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.36/2021.
c) To stay the operation of the illegal orders and 5 illegal warrants, dated 07.06.2023, issued to the 5 advocate commissioners, on the same properties on which there is already an earlier order dated 20.03.2021 in crti.Misc.No.36/2021.
d) To pass necessary orders on the 7 issues raised in the above writ petition in para No.14, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27 & 32 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. This Court has heard Sri Nazundappa, learned senior counsel, as instructed by Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S. Satyanarayana Moorthy learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.
3. This Writ Petition is filed raising number of issues which are briefly summaries as follows :
4. In grounds from 7 to 15 it is submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued two sets of warrants under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.M.P.No.36 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2023. In paragraph 18 it is stated that there is suppression of facts including the cases pending before the various Tribunals. In paragraph 19 it is stated that the affidavit which has been filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is accompanied by an affidavit, which does not fulfill the conditions laid down in Clauses 1 to 9 of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act. From paragraph 19 these grounds are repeated till para 25, and then onwards the classification of the account has been challenged. General grounds are raised thereafter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued the matter at length. It is his primary contention that two orders were passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.36 of 2021 and in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2023. He contends that there cannot be two orders to take up possession of the property. The 2nd major ground urged is that the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 14 (1) is not in accordance with law and it does not contain the necessary disclosures. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments including W.P.No.4430 of 2020 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Standard Chartered Bank v V. Noble Kumar & Others, (2013) 9 SCC 620 : 2013 (2) DRTC 609 (SC). Lastly he lays heavy stress on the contents of the affidavit filed before the Magistrate and contends that the necessary ingredients set out in Clauses i to ix in Section 14, of the SARFAESI Act are not visible from the affidavit. He relies on the cases which are mentioned in the grounds of Appeal itself. He also raised the issue about the registration of the security interest created. Therefore, learned counsel argues that the writ of Certiorari should be issued and the entire records should be summoned and the warrants should be set aside.
6. In reply, learned standing counsel for the respondent Sri Satyanarayana Moorthy argues in line with what is stated in the counter affidavit. It is his contention that as earlier warrant could not be executed within the time stipulated by the Act, fresh warrants had to be obtained by the Bank for the sake of taking possession of th
