SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 825

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
M/s Only Wheel and Others – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda and Others – Respondents
C.O. No. 3813 of 2024
Decided On : 04-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Saptansu Basu, Siddhartha Banerjee, Susmita Nath
For the Respondents: Arabinda Chatterjee, Surajit Auddy, Swapnalekha Auddy

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.

Headnote:(A) SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Sections 13 and 14 - Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Borrowers challenging orders of District Magistrate regarding possession of secured assets - Petition denied as subsequent order by District Magistrate was an administrative amendment to facilitate recovery process. (Paras 4, 21, 33, 40)

(B) District Magistrate's powers under SARFAESI Act - The powers exercised are ministerial, and the District Magistrate is not functus officio after passing the initial order. They can amend orders administratively to implement recovery measures. (Paras 24, 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, borrowers, contested the legality of a second order by the District Magistrate changing the officer authorized to take possession of their mortgaged property after defaulting on a substantial loan, which led to the initial orders under SARFAESI Act. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The learned DRAT correctly held that the District Magistrate's subsequent order was merely ministerial and permitted to substitute officers for effective enforcement of possession orders. (Paras 37, 39)

Issues: Whether the District Magistrate exceeded authority by passing a second order after earlier possession order and the nature of his powers under SARFAESI Act. (Paras 6, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the District Magistrate's roles under the SARFAESI Act are mainly administrative, allowing amendments for procedural efficiency without altering substantive orders. No judicial function is involved at this stage. (Paras 25, 28)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application under article 227 against lower tribunal decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. district magistrate's authority post initial order. (Para 6 , 9 , 19)
3. role of drat in reviewing lower tribunal’s decisions. (Para 10 , 21 , 22 , 34)
4. nature of powers under section 14 of the sarfaesi act. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 49)
5. subsequent orders under sarfaesi do not alter the essence of prior orders. (Para 42 , 48)
6. final dismissal order without costs. (Para 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the borrowers and is directed against a judgment and order dated August 30, 2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata in Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2024.

2. By the judgment and order impugned, the order dated January 16, 2024 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Kolkata in S.A No. 229 of 2023 was set aside and the secured creditor was given liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Sailendranath Ghosh availed overdraft facilities for Rs. 300.00 lakhs from the opposite party/bank. Since there was failure on the part of the petitioners to repay the loan amount, notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued. Proposal for one time settlement was also made which did not materialize. Thereafter, the opposite party/bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South) at Alipore passed an order on 6th October, 2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 directing the Inspector-in-Charge, Tiljala Police Station to take necessary action. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South), Alipore passed another order dated November 28, 2023 directing the Inspector-in-Charge of the Pragati Maidan Police Station to take necessary action.

4. Challenging the recovery proceedings, petitioners filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Kolkata (for short “DRT”) which is registered as S.A. No. 229 of 2023. In connection with the said SARFAESI Application, the petitioners filed an Interlocutory Application being I.A. 3645 of 2023 praying for stay of operation of the order dated November 28, 2023 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South). The learned DRT disposed of the Interlocutory Application being I.A. no. 3645 of 2023 thereby allowing the prayer for stay of operation of the orders dated 06.10.2023 and 28.11.2023, both passed by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas (South), Alipore and restrained the opposite party/bank from taking any coercive steps in respect of the secured property on the basis of the impugned orders dated 06.10.2023 and 28.11.2023 passed by the District Magistrate without the leave of the Tribunal till the next date of hearing. Being aggrieved by such order the opposite party/bank preferred an appeal before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (for short “DRAT”) which was registered as Misc Appeal no. 17 of 2024. The learned DRAT, by a judgment and order dated August 30, 2024, allowed the said appeal thereby setting aside the order dated January 16, 2024 passed by the learned DRT thus giving liberty to the secured creditor to proceed in accordance with law.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated August 30, 2024 passed by the learned DRAT dated August 30, 2024 the borrowers have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Mr. Saptansu Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the District Magistrate became functus officio after passing the order dated October 6, 2023 and, therefore, the subsequent order passed the District Magistrate on November 28, 2023 is illegal, void, ab initio and non est in the eye of law. Mr. Basu contended that an application under Section 14 of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top