Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
DCB Bank Limited – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 3064 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Acharya.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kanva Antani.
Adherence to the time limit prescribed in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for deciding applications is mandatory.
Headnote:
SARFAESI Act - Application under Section 14 - Amendment of Section 14 - [Section 14 of SARFAESI Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which specifies a time limit for deciding the application. The court highlighted the amendment to Section 14, emphasizing the time limit for passing the order by the Magistrate and the consequences of not adhering to the prescribed time limit. The court directed the respondent to adhere to the time limit and convey the outcome of the application expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, seeking possession of secured assets. The respondent District Magistrate had not decided the application within the specified time limit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent District Magistrate had not decided the application within the prescribed time limit, despite repeated requests from the petitioner.
Issues: Non-compliance with the time limit for deciding the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the time limit prescribed in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and directed the respondent to comply with the prescribed time limit for deciding the application.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition with a direction for the respondent to adhere to the time limit prescribed in Section 14 and convey the outcome of the application expeditiously.
ORDER :
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is that the respondent District Magistrate is not deciding the application dated 02.03.2019 filed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) though the statute specifies the particular time limit within which such application has to be decided.
2. As the order is for the purpose of compliance of statutory provision, formal notice is not found necessary.
3. Mr. S.S. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Borrowers having failed to repay the amounts, the authorized officers of the Petitioner Bank was constrained to move the aforementioned Application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Respondent No. 2 on 02.03.2019. Inter-alia praying for the assistance for taking physical possession of the immovable properties (Secured asset) exclusively under the charge of the Bank and to hand over the same to the Bank. The said application is yet not taken for hearing.
4. Mr. S.S. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order passed by this Court on 05.09.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 13486 of 2019 in which this Court has given specific direction to the Collector to take a decision within a stipulated time. The said order reads as under:
“1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:
“9(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the learned Collector and District Magistrate, Vadodara for expeditious disposal of the Securitisation Application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 13.12.2018 in accordance with law authorizing any subordinate officer to him to take possession of secured assets and forward the same to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks or within stipulated time as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”
2. It is the case of the Bank that has filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the respondent No. 2 on 13.12.2018.
3. Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and submits that there is time bound schedule within which the respondent No. 2 ought to have decide the application.
3.1 Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that though repeated requests have been made to respondent No. 2 to decide such application, no such decision has been taken.
4. Reliance is also placed on an order passed by this Court on 10.4.2019 in the case of same petition where this Court after reproducing the relevant provisions of the Section, directed the respondent No. 2-Collector to decide the application filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
5. Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner invites identical order in the present case.
6. In view of the order dated 10.4.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5309 of 2019, similar directions are issued as under:
7. On reading the provisions of Section 14, it is clear that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate before whom the application under Section 14 is filed, after satisfying the contents of the affidavit filed by the secured creditors has to pass appropriate orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured asset within a period of 30 days from the date of application, and not later than 60 days. Hence, the respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to adhere to the time limit prescribed in the said provisos and take appropriate decision on the application filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Subject to the said direction, the petition is disposed of. Direct Service is permitted.”
5. Mr. Acharya furt
