IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, JJ.
State Bank of India - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
CWP Nos. 9636, 9637, 9638, 9646, 9647, 9648 of 2023
Decided On : 18-12-2023
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest 2002 - Power of District Magistrate under Section 14 - Section 14 - Summary of the Act and Sections: The judgment discusses the nature of power exercisable by the District Magistrate in applications filed by the Bank or Financial Institutions under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest 2002. It emphasizes that the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate under Section 14 is purely ministerial and limited to assisting secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets. The court highlights the requirements and time limits for the District Magistrate to pass suitable orders for taking possession of the secured assets.
Fact of the Case:
The borrowers failed to repay the loan amount, resulting in their loan accounts being classified as non-performing assets. The petitioner-Bank filed applications under Section 14 of the Act seeking assistance in taking over possession of the secured assets. The District Magistrate started hearing the borrowers and directed the petitioner-bank to supply documents to borrowers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate under Section 14 is purely ministerial and limited to assisting secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets. It emphasized the prompt action required by the District Magistrate and directed the respondent to decide the applications filed by the petitioner-Bank under Section 14 of the Act within the parameters of the law as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Issues: Nature of power exercisable by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, the scope and extent of the jurisdiction vested in the District Magistrate, and the District Magistrates' compliance with the law and time limits.
Ratio Decidendi: The District Magistrate's power under Section 14 is executory and ministerial in nature and not adjudicatory. The District Magistrates are required to act promptly and with due dispatch in ensuring that possession of the secured asset is recovered as quickly as possible.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondent to decide the applications filed by the petitioner-Bank under Section 14 of the Act within the parameters of the law as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Since common question of law arises for consideration in all these writ petitions, therefore, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by common reasoning.
2. The moot question that arises for consideration, in all these petitions, is the nature of power exercisable by the District Magistrate in application(s) filed by the Bank or Financial Institutions under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest 2002 (for short, the Act).
3. The undisputed facts are that the borrowers availed of various financial assistance from the petitioner-Bank by mortgaging their immovable properties. However, the borrowers failed to repay the loan amount, as a result whereof, their loan accounts were classified as non performing assets (NPA). The petitioner-Bank thereafter issued notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act to the borrowers, but to no avail, constraining the petitioner-Bank to file application(s) under Section 14 of the Act seeking assistance in taking over possession of the secured assets. However, prior to the aforesaid application(s), the borrowers being aware of the proceedings filed caveat petition(s) before the District Magistrate in respect of order of delivery of possession and the District Magistrate started hearing the borrowers and directed the petitioner-bank to supply documents to borrowers. Hence, the instant petitions.
4. The respondent-District Magistrate has contested the petitions by filing replies, wherein common defence has been taken to the effect that on examination of the case files, it was noticed that the borrowers in their respective representations filed under Section 13(3A) of the Act had raised objections that classification of their accounts as NPAs was not in accordance with statutory guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and that the petitioner-Bank had wrongly clubbed the liability of other independent and distinct entities, as a result of which their accounts turned NPAs. In view of this, in order to satisfy the contents of the affidavit(s), the authorized officer of the petitioner-Bank was directed to submit the relevant record in this regard. Direction given to the authorized officer was purely an administrative direction with a view to assess the record so that the contents of the affidavit(s) could be satisfied.
It is in this background that the question, as formulated above, arises for consideration.
5. However, in order to determine the question, it shall be apt firstly to reproduce section 14 of the Act, which reads as under:-
(1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him-
(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and
(b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor:
1[Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that-
(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application;
(ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holdin
AI
The nature of power under Section 14 of the Act is executory and ministerial in nature and not adjudicatory.
The District Magistrate's role under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is ministerial, requiring prompt action without adjudicating disputes between parties.
The Court clarified the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, holding that both the District Magistrate and Chief Judicial Magistrate have the jurisdicti....
The District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate must personally exercise the powers under S.14 of the Securitisation Act, as these powers cannot be delegated.
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....
Possession of the secured asset can be taken by the secured creditor before confirmation of sale of the secured assets as well as post confirmation of sale.
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.