IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J., HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
Mrs. Susmi Dasgupta - Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda & ors. - Respondents
MAT 2119 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2024
Decided on : 22-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)
1. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed in WPA 27490 of 2024 filed by the appellant. The appellant filed the said writ petition praying for issuance of certiorari to quash the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 06.01.2024 exercising power under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the SARFAESI Act) and in nine-point affidavit filed by the respondent bank under Section 14 of the said Act.
2. The learned Single Judge upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case took note of the submissions of the appellant that she is neither the borrower nor the guarantor and that no money is due and payable by the appellant/writ petitioner and the asset of the property has already been taken over by the respondent bank and, therefore, remedy was sought for. The learned writ court noted that according to Section 17(1) of the Act any person aggrieved by any measures referred to in Section 13(4) of the Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under the Chapter may make an application alongwith such fee as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within a period of 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken. Further, the learned Single Judge observed that there are several judicial pronouncements that “any person” mentioned in Sub-section 1 of Section 17 of the Act brings within its fold not only the borrower or the guarantor but also any other person who may be affected by any action under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the said Act. Taking note of the grievance expressed by the appellant/writ petitioner that she is aggrieved by the action taken under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, it will be open to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for relief and, in the event, an application is filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the same to be adjudicated by the Tribunal in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has elaborately taken us through the factual averments including the loan documents which were filed by the respondent bank before the Tribunal to demonstrate that the property which has now been taken possession pursuant to the order passed under Section 14 of the Act was never mortgaged to the bank to secure a loan availed by a partnership firm in which the husband of the appellant/writ petitioner was a partner. In this regard, elaborate reference was made to the sanction letter issued by the respondent bank in favour of the partnership firm and other documents concerning the housing loan availed by the appellant as a principal borrower and her husband as a co-borrower in respect of the flat which according to the appellant was exclusively owned by her and the property stood in the name of the appellant and her husband was only a co-borrower. Therefore, it is submitted that there were several facilities extended out of which the facilities extended in WCDL-6 pertain to the flat on which a housing loan was availed by the appellant and that facility viz. WCDL-6 had already been closed as the amount payable was repaid to the respondent bank. It is submitted that in respect of the facilities extended by the bank in WCDL-7 for which action has been taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act the flat owned by the appellant was not the subject matter of mortgage. The other documents were also referred to show that the flat owned by the appellant which was taken possession by the respondent bank was not a secured asset. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondent bank is enjoined upon a duty to disclose correct particulars/information in an application filed under Section 14 of the said
Balakrishna Rama Tarle vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported at (2023) 1 SCC 662
PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank & ors. reported at (2024) 6 SCC 579
NKGSB Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Subir Chakravarty reported in (2022) 10 SCC 286
R.D. Jain & Co. vs. Capital First Ltd. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 675
AI
The court affirmed that aggrieved parties under the SARFAESI Act must approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for relief, emphasizing the importance of alternative remedies.
Legal heirs of a deceased guarantor cannot contest proceedings under SARFAESI Act after notice served during the guarantor's lifetime, as they must seek remedy via Debts Recovery Tribunal.
The availability of remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for guarantors/sureties, and the distinction of their position from that of a lessee, influenced the court's decision.
The District Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is limited to ascertaining whether the statements required by the secured creditor in its affidavit have been made. The Dis....
The High Court affirmed that the adequate remedy under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued before seeking judicial intervention, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory options.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper application of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, including the requirements for the application, consideration of borrower's representatio....
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.