IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, RAJESH.S. PATIL, JJ.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No.3351 of 2023
Decided on : 30-08-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - SARFAESI Act – Section 13(2) and 14 – Company – Carrying on banking business - Equitable Mortgage by deposit of title deeds – Whether District Magistrate would be correct and legal in his approach to act upon such letter of the third party and not proceed to take an action to take over possession in Section 13(4) of SARFAESI would mandate, it would be necessary to extract – Held, it is clearly seen that third party had given a No Objection and had consented for mortgage of secured asset and had received a sum of Rs.30,41,069/- of Loan amount from erstwhile lender CCFIL by four cheques - In suit filed by third party, a decree was passed after borrower had appeared in suit without any summons and had not contested suit and the decree was passed since it appeared that dispute was settled amicably - Petitioner/Bank was not a party to said proceedings - Court are of clear view that Respondents were totally illegal in their approach in addressing impugned communication dated as also stalling recovery proceedings as initiated by the Petitioner - Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh S. Patil, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the following reliefs :-
(a1) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ of the like nature thereby quashing or setting aside the impugned letter/communication dated 17.11.2022 directing that the possession of the secured asset cannot be taken until appropriate orders are passed in Civil Suit filed by Petitioner in District Court Pune being Civil Suit No. 1436 of 2015.
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ of the like nature thereby directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to forthwith and or within such time as this Court may deem fit and proper to execute and implement order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and to take physical possession of the secured assets in execution of the order dated 12.01.2021 and to handover the same to the Authorized Officer of this Petitioner.”
Facts:
3. The Petitioner is a banking company carrying on banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In or about April, 2005, one Mr.Dipak Digambar Naik along with Mrs.Aruna Naik (for short referred as “the co-borrowers”), the Directors of M/s.Millennium Motors Pvt. Ltd. had approached Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited (for short “CCFIL”) for grant of credit facilities. Based on the request of the borrowers, CCFIL sanctioned housing loan for a sum of Rs.30,41,069/- to the said borrowers. Such credit facility was repayable in 96 Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) of Rs.47,040/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. The borrowers created Equitable Mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the land bearing Plot No.47, admeasuring 3600 sq. ft. being part of the larger land bearing Survey No.48/2 (City Survey No.410/519, Yerwada, Pune along with constructed residential bungalow admeasuring 2600 sq.ft. built up area (for short “the secured assets”), for loan amount of Rs.30,41,069/- sanctioned under housing loan. Further in the month of May, 2009, the borrowers again approached CCFIL for grant of additional credit facilities. CCFIL granted a further loan of an amount of Rs.81,00,000/-.
4. The said loan amount of Rs.81,00,000/- was repayable in 82 EMIs of Rs.1,36,139/-. As the title documents were already deposited, the fresh loan amount was liquidated by deducting the outstanding amount from the earlier loan amount and the remaining amount was disbursed.
5. As the loan being sanctioned and disbursed, various security documents were executed in favour of CCFIL. The borrowers assured to honour the repayment schedule for repaying back the said financial facilities as per the agreed terms.
6. However, the borrowers failed to honour the commitment and perform terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As the account became highly irregular, the CCFIL classified the account of the borrowers as Non-Performing Asset (for short “NPA”) in accordance with the RBI Guidelines.
7. By a Deed of Assignment dated 9 April 2013, CCFIL assigned to the Petitioners herein, all its rights, title, interest, benefit in and to the debts due and payable by the borrowers together with any incidental rights thereto including assignment of and benefits under the financial instruments along with the right to enforce its interest in the underlying securities thereunder. Pursuant to the Deed of Assignment, the Petitioner was entitled to demand and recover repayment
Point of Law : Nature of powers to be exercised by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/learned District Magistrate, High Court in impugned judgment and order has rightly observed and held that powe....
(1) Possession of secured asset – Powers exercisable by CMM/DM under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act are ministerial step – Section 14 of SARFAESI Act does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points ....
The court clarified that the jurisdiction of the relevant Authority under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is limited to assisting a secured creditor in recovering possession of secured assets from a d....
Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, a court is not required to provide notice to a debtor or consider claims from third parties regarding secured assets during the possession proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.