Back
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Susmi Dasgupta – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent
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 cre
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....
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....
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
