SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dipankar Datta, M. S. Karnik, JJ.
Ca. Manisha Mehta & Ors.. - Appellant
Versus
The Board Of Directors Of Represented & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 8418 of 2022
Decided On : 23-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Mathew Nedumpara, Maria Nedumpara And Hemali Merva, for the Respondent.

Natural justice does not need to be complied with while considering an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Headnote:

Natural justice does not need to be complied with while considering an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The SARFAESI Act is intended to facilitate quick recovery of secured debts without extending any opportunity of hearing to a borrower and without judicial/quasi-judicial intervention till possession of the secured asset is taken. The court refers to previous decisions and concludes that natural justice has limited application in actions taken for enforcement of security interest and is not required at the stage when section 14 operates.

Fact of the Case:

This writ petition is filed by multiple petitioners who are debtors of different banks/financial institutions. They are aggrieved by orders passed by District Magistrates/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The main prayer of the petitioners is for a declaration that natural justice should be read into section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzes the arguments made by the petitioners and refers to established principles of law. It also considers the scheme of the SARFAESI Act and previous decisions on the matter. The court concludes that natural justice has limited application in actions taken for enforcement of security interest and is not required at the stage when section 14 operates.

Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that natural justice does not need to be complied with while considering an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The language of section 14 is clear and unambiguous, and there is no requirement of complying with natural justice by putting the borrower on notice. The court rejects the prayers of the petitioners related to natural justice.

Result: The writ petition is dismissed. The court refuses to grant any writ based on the satisfaction that the petitioners have an adequate remedy under the SARFAESI Act. The contentions on the merits of the pending applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal are left open.

ORDER

1. This writ petition is at the instance of multiple petitioners who are all debtors of different banks/financial institutions (hereafter 'the secured creditors", for short). They are aggrieved by orders passed by District Magistrates/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter "the SARFAESI Act", for short). Some of the petitioners have approached the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and proceedings are pending.

2. The writ petition contains diverse prayers, which are set out herein below: -

"a) Declare that the obligation to hear the Borrowers/parties affected is liable to be read into the Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and that without such an obligation the Section is liable to the violative of the fundamental rights/basic structure of Constitution;

b) Declare that Exhibit "C" order in the case of Petitioner no. 1 and similar orders in the case of the other Petitioners are liable to be declared as null and void ab initio being violative of the fundamental rights.

c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Exhibits C, C1, D1, E, F1 being rendered null and void ab initio.

d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents Nos.7 to 11, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai/District Magistrate Pune/Thane/Palghar to hear the Petitioners in all pending cases before them so far as the respective Petitioners are concerned, and where orders are already passed without hearing them, to hear the Petitioners and pass orders afresh by quashing all such orders rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai/District Magistrate Pune/Thane;

e) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining and prohibiting the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai/District Magistrate Pune/Thane/Palghar, from passing any further orders without affording an opportunity to be heard to the Borrowers/Petitioners and restraining the Respondents from executing the orders which have already passed;

f) Declare that in PILs which are in the realm of class action litigation, which is distinct from 'pro bono litigation', to avoid a scenario as in PIL (cr) no. 24/2011, where interested persons (Creditors) could obtain orders against their adversaries (Borrowers) entirely behind their back, without notice to the borrowers or the public at large, a procedure akin to Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the CPC is liable to be adopted,

g) In furtherance of prayer (f) above, a consequential direction to the Registry of this Court to make appropriate amendments to the rules of procedure concerning PILs;

3. We have no doubt that the writ petition, in its present form, is not maintainable. Each petitioner is a debtor of a different bank/financial institution and, therefore, has a distinct cause of action. All these petitioners could not have joined in one single writ petition. However, we do not propose to dismiss the writ petition on such technicality and proceed to consider whether it is otherwise maintainable or not considering the claims raised therein.

4. The main prayer of the petitioners is for a declaration that natural justice should be read into section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

5. Mr. Nedumpara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners refers to the well-known principle of law that if a statute does not exclude compliance with natural justice principles either expressly or by necessary implication, compliance with natural justice has to be read into the statute. He argues that the SARFAESI Act has neither expressly excluded nor excluded by implication the requirement to comply with natural justice while the District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate considers an application of a secured creditor under section 14 and passes an order thereon; therefore, natural justice has to be read into section 14 for e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top