IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nirzar S. Desai, J.
Nitin Ghanshyambhai Mehta – Petitioner
Versus
The Collector and District Magistrate – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 21788 of 2022
Decided On : 01-09-2023
Mandamus - Securitization Application - Securitization and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act - Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief against an order passed by the In-Charge Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ahmedabad in Securitization Application No. 86 of 2021 and a consequential possession notice issued by the City Mamlatdar, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. The petitioner had offered a sum of money and issued a cheque to the respondent bank, but the possession notice was still issued. The respondent opposed the petition on the grounds of maintainability and alternative remedies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy available and directed the petitioner to approach DRAT, Mumbai for challenging the order dated 29.07.2022. The court also directed the petitioner to pursue the remedy before DRT-1, Ahmedabad for the rest of the prayers and requested the DRT-1, Ahmedabad to expedite the hearing of Securitization Application No.86 of 2021.
Issues: Maintainability of the petition, availability of alternative remedies, and the need for expedited hearing of the Securitization Application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should exhaust alternative remedies available and pursue the pending Securitization Application before DRT-1, Ahmedabad. The court emphasized the need for expedited hearing of the application.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to approach DRAT, Mumbai for challenging the order dated 29.07.2022 and to pursue the remedy before DRT-1, Ahmedabad. The DRT-1, Ahmedabad was requested to expedite the hearing of Securitization Application No.86 of 2021. The court clarified that it did not go into the merits of the matter.
ORDER :
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s:
“A. Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the In-Charge Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ahmedabad in SA No. 86 of 2021 dated 29.07.2022 and the consequential notice dated 06.10.2022 issued by the City Mamlatdar, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad.
B. Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order passed by the In-Charge Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ahmedabad in SA No. 86 of 2021 dated 29.07.2022 and the consequential notice dated 06.10.2022 issued by the City Mamlatdar, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad; and further be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from taking possession of the premises of the petitioners as mentioned in the schedule of the notice dated 06.10.2022 being property (secured assets) situated at 5th Floor, Unit B/507/A, Mondeal Square, Survey No.833/P, 881/P and 843, Final Plot No.1/1, Town Planning Scheme No.23, Opp. Honest Restaurant, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad.
C. Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.”
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Vivek Sevak for respondent No.2.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submitted that as the application being Securitization Application No.86 of 2021 is pending before the DRT 1, Ahmedabad and the said application is preferred under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). In the said application, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s:
“A. The Honorable Tribunal may be allow the present pleased application and to quash. and set aside the entire action/measures initiated by the respondent under the Securitization Act including impugned demand Notice dated 29/11/2018 and 11.12.2018 in the interest of justice.
B. Your Lordship be pleased to quash and set aside order passed by Ld' District Magistrate in vide case no. S.R. No.245/2019/2020 dated 7.2.2020
C. The Hon'ble Tribunal be further pleased to direct the respondent bank to reverse all the charges, expenses, costs etc. debited by the respondent in the account of the applicant No.1 for the purpose of initiating and continuing illegal proceedings under the Securitization Act and be pleased to direct the respondent bank not to recover any such amount from the applicant.
D. To award compensation in terms of the section 19 of the Securitization Act.
E. To grant any other reliefs which this Honorable Tribunal deems just and fit in circumstances of the case
F. To award the costs of the present Application.”
Interim relief
“a. Be pleased to grant injunction by staying the Operation, implementation and execution impugned notice dated 29.11.2018 and 11.12.2018 issued by the respondent and be further pleased to restrain the its men, authorized officers, agents, servants, assignees and attorneys etc. or any other person claiming through Respondent bank from continuing or initiating any further measures against the properties of the applicant in question which is more particularly described in SCHEDULE of this application.
b. Pending Hearing and Final Disposal of this S.A. This Hon'ble Tribunal be restrain order passed by Ld' District Magistrate in Case No. S.R. No. 245/2019/2020 dated 07.02.2020.
c. To grant any other reliefs which this Honorable Tribunal deems just and fit in the circumstances of the case.”
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya drew the attention of this Court to an order dated 18.12.2021, passed by the DRT-1, Ahmedabad, whereby, the respondent Financial Institution was directed not to take any coercive action against the property in question till the hearing of the matter on 20.12.2021. According to learned advocate Mr. Mangukiy
AI
Exhaustion of alternative remedies and expedited hearing of pending applications.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's directive to handle the deposited amount, consider an early hearing of the Securitization Application, and not execute the sale-deed wi....
Subsection 3 of Section 13 makes it clear that a notice under Subsection 2 shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower. If Ms.Lodha’s submission were to be accepted, then the word “shall....
The court established that the executing authority under the Securitization Act must comply with orders for possession and cannot raise disputes regarding the secured asset.
Tribunals must decide all issues including limitation and jurisdiction; failure vitiates proceedings, warranting remand.
Contumacious conduct and failure to comply with court conditions can lead to the dismissal of applications and imposition of costs.
The borrower's right of redemption is extinguished upon the publication of the auction notice, allowing the auction purchaser to claim possession.
The court established that the right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the issuance of a sale certificate, and timely challenge to bank actions is essential.
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.