Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
AMIT PRAKASH JORI – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging an order dated 16th August 2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Pune, in exercise of powers under Rule 107(11)(d-1) appointing the Tehsildar as the officer empowered to take possession from the petitioners.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are as under:
The petitioners are the borrowers who were granted a loan of Rs.30 lakh by the respondent No.2 on 5th October 2016. On an application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued a certificate under Section 101 of the said Act for recovery of an amount of Rs.28,15,685/-. It is further submitted that the manner in which the certificate was issued, and the subsequent recovery proceedings, have been tainted by procedural irregularities that vitiate the legal validity of the enforcement process, thereby raising serious questions regarding adherence to statutory requirements and principles of natural justice.
3. The respondent No.4, being the Special Rec
The court held that the District Magistrate's role in executing recovery orders is strictly executionary, not requiring a hearing or assessment of merits, thus upholding the procedural framework of t....
The District Magistrate's role in executing possession orders under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is strictly executionary, with no requirement for a hearing or discretionary evaluation.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 107(5)(e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rule in determining the proper procedure for dealing with the standi....
The District Magistrate is not required to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while examining applications filed by secured creditors under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The p....
Possession of the secured asset can be taken by the secured creditor before confirmation of sale of the secured assets as well as post confirmation of sale.
A District Magistrate's authority under the SARFAESI Act is administrative; subsequent orders can be made to modify the officer assigned for asset possession without it being deemed functus officio.
Remedy of appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act is not available to secured creditors against District Magistrate orders but only to aggrieved parties.
The court established that magistrates must assist secured creditors in enforcing possession orders under the Securitization Act without adjudicating disputes over the legitimacy of the claims.
The court established that the executing authority under the Securitization Act must comply with orders for possession and cannot raise disputes regarding the secured asset.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
