Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1035
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Ronit Nirman Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.R. 2648 of 2011 With C.R.R. 2649 of 2011
Decided on : 02-07-2024
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Financial law
Act Referred
DRT ACT: S.19
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT: S.6
KERALA BUILDINGS LEASE AND RENT CONTROL ACT: S.18
RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT: S.20
SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT: S.14, S.13
SECURITY INTEREST ENFORCEMENT RULES: R.9
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner company sought to set aside orders permitting bank possession of assets under the SARFAESI Act, asserting a lack of jurisdiction from the Chief Judicial Magistrate. They contended the bank acted prematurely regarding issuance of notices for recovery prior to statutory timelines.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the Chief Judicial Magistrate's power aligns with statutory responsibilities under the SARFAESI Act, permitting the assumption of jurisdiction based on legislative intent to expedite asset retrieval.
Issues: The primary issue involved whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate had the rightful authority to issue orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act against the points of alleged premature actions by the bank.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that Chief Judicial Magistrate is equally competent as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate per Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, validating administrative orders without infringing upon judicial discretion.
Result: Both criminal revisional applications dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Md. Sabir Ahmed Mr. T. Ahamed Mr. S. Chakraborty Mr. D. Banerjee
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Mr. Debasish Saha
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background relating to loan and mortgage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments on jurisdiction under sarfaesi act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. submissions on the application of legal principles. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court's rationale regarding jurisdiction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. interpretation of legislative provisions in relation to judicial power (Para 27 , 28) |
| 6. court recognizes cjm's competency in sarfaesi applications. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. conclusion dismissing the revisional applications. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
1. The instant revisional applications are filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside of the orders dated 28.06.2011 and 01.07.2011 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat in Miscellaneous Case No. 88/2011 and Miscellaneous Case No. 92/2011 respectively under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002.
2. Petitioner company approached the Respondents no. 2 and 3 for availing cash credit facility for its business purpose and the Respondents after going through the formalities sanctioned cash credit limit up to Rs.5/-crores as working capital in the month of January 2009 on the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 14.01.09.
3. The terms and conditions of the said facility required equitable mortgage of several land and buildings in the name of the company or its directors particularly described in the sanction letter dated 14.01.09. It also required Hypothecation of Stock and book debts and pledge of Rs.20 lakhs.
4. After sanction of the said facility, the company transacted in the loan account for repayment of the said loan to considerable extent to the respondent bank.
5. On several occasions the petitioner company requested the respondent Bank to issue proper statement of account so that the company could ascertain its liability towards the said Cash Credit account in spite of which the respondent did not issue any statement of account.
6. The petitioner company somehow collected the statement of the loan account wherefrom it appeared that the company paid the entire interest as claimed by the bank and it also transpired that the amount was not shown as brought forward in the opening statement but was shown in the closing amount denoting inconsistency in the account maintained by the bank, which also proposed nil balance amount due in the said bank to be shown as brought forward amount.
7. Petitioner company on 15.03.11 received notice dated 11.03.2011 purported to be the notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 issued by the respondents whereby the respondents asked the company pay an amount of Rs. 5,35,83,264/-and the petitioner was also served with a notice under Section 13 (4)(a) of the Act dated 12.05.2011 for taking possession of the immovable property described therein.
8. The respondents on 13.07.11 issued possession notice for taking symbolic possession of the immovable assets of the applicant under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 read with Section 13 (4) of the said Act and the same was published in the news paper on 17.07.11.
9. Petitioner company stated that the respondent bank issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act on 11.03.11 which was received by the petitioner on 15.03.11 and the notice under Section 13 (4)(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 issued by the respondents on 12.05.11 whereby respondents on 1 and 2 had taken measures under SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the expiry of the statutory period of 60 days therefore the notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act was premature and bad in law and subsequent steps taken by the respondent bank on the basis of the said notice were also unlawful and liable to be quashed.
10. Petitioner stated that respondent bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat for assistance in taking physical possession of the se
