Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 311
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
M/s Subhash Chand Kathuria - Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1869 of 2024
Decided On : 09-02-2024
Mr. Bharat Bhushan with Mr. Pulkit Sanghi, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nitin Garg with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
Territorial jurisdiction and the authority of the DRT to assess the enforcement of security under the SARFAESI Act.
Headnote:
Territorial Jurisdiction - SARFAESI Act - Section 13, Section 14, Section 17 - The court found that the order passed by the learned CMM was without territorial jurisdiction as the property in question fell within the jurisdiction of the North District and not the North-West District. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 13(4) and Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the authority of the DRT to assess the enforcement of security and the power of the CMM to take action within its jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an order passed by the learned CMM, alleging lack of territorial jurisdiction due to the property falling within the jurisdiction of a different district.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by the learned CMM was without territorial jurisdiction and suspended the order for a week to allow the petitioner to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, enforcement of security under SARFAESI Act, availability of efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of territorial jurisdiction and the authority of the DRT to assess the enforcement of security under the SARFAESI Act.
Final Decision: The order dated 09th January, 2024 passed by the learned CMM was suspended for a week to allow the petitioner to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 09th January, 2024 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ("CMM") North-West, Rohini in case bearing no. CT 96/2024. It is alleged that the learned CMM has passed the aforesaid order without having the territorial jurisdiction.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner has taken a credit limit of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- from the respondent/Bank in which the respondent had kept the entire first floor with common stair case of the built-up Property No. 33, Block-D, admeasuring 200 sq. yards situated at CC Colony, opposite Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007 as a collateral security.
3. It is submitted that the loan account of the petitioner had been classified as Non Performing Asset ("NPA"), pursuant to which the respondent/Bank served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ("SARFAESI Act").
4. Subsequently, the respondent/Bank filed the case bearing no. CT 96/2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned CMM, North-West, Rohini Court to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset against the petitioner.
5. It is submitted that by order dated 09th January, 2024 the learned CMM has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the respondent/Bank. Consequently, the petitioner has received a notice dated 16th January, 2024 from the receiver appointed by the learned CMM to take possession of the property in question.
6. The petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the Court of learned CMM, North-West, Rohini does not have the territorial jurisdiction, as the property in question falls within the jurisdiction of learned CMM, North District, under Police Station: Model Town.
7. The present matter was listed for hearing yesterday i.e. 08th February, 2024, when this Court had requested Mr. Satyakam, learned Additional Standing Counsel, for Government of NCT of Delhi ("GNCTD") to take requisite instructions and apprise the Court as to whether the Court of learned CMM, North-West District or the Court of learned CMM, North District would have the requisite jurisdiction, in terms of the contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Today, Mr. Satyakam, learned Additional Standing Counsel, GNCTD has handed over a letter dated 09th February, 2024, issued by the Office of the Principal District & Sessions Judge (North-West) Rohini Courts, Delhi, which reads as under:
"OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH-WEST) ROHINI COURTS DELHI
No. 39/Lit./NW/RC/2024
Delhi, Dated 09/2/2024
To
Sh. Satyakam
Addl. Standing Counsel (GNCTD)
High Court of Delhi
Sub: Report w.r.t Jurisdiction sought in writ petition 1869/2024, titled as M/s Subhash Chand Kathuria vs. Punjab National Bank.
Respected Sir,
I am directed to communicate you that the said petition (CT 96/2024) was filed before the Ld CMM (North-West) mentioning the P.S. Bharat Nagar which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ld CMM (North-West), however, the area of property in question falls for Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction under North District.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully
Branch Incharge
Litigation Branch (North-West),
Rohini Courts, Delhi"
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. In view of the aforesaid letter, it is clear that the area where the property in question is situated, falls within the jurisdiction of the learned CMM, North District and not learned CMM, North-West District.
10. Thus, it is clear that the order dated 09th January, 2024 passed by the learned CMM, North-West District, Rohini in CT No. 96/2024 is clearly without any territorial jurisdiction.
11. This Court notes that in terms of Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified, the secured creditor has the authority to take recourse to the measures as given in the said Section, which includes taking p
