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

2021 Supreme(J&K) 108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Abdul Aziz Wani – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K & ors. – Respondents
WP (c) 1012 of 2021, CM 3320, 3319 of 2021
Decided on : 04-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A. H. Furrahi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. B.A. Dar, Sr. AAG

Point of Law: Mortgaged Property - Proceedings for possession of secured assets - Section 14 of SARFAESI Act clearly describes property which has been mortgaged. In case any of property described therein has not been mortgaged petitioner can take objections to that effect by filing application before District Magistrate.

Headnote:

SARFAESI Act - Section 14 - Assets - Writ petition has inter alia challenged proceedings for possession of secured assets - Petitioner is a borrower and had mortgaged some of his property to secure loan - On account of default in payment of borrowed money proceedings were initiated against him under securitization. Now bank has approached to District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of property.

Finding of the court: It is only on receipt of such application that District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on being satisfied of contents of application, may pass suitable orders for purposes of taking possession of secured assets. Court are not aware if any final order has been passed by District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as case may be, as is contemplated under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. Petitioner has not challenged any such order. Therefore, in event, if no order has been passed, District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may consider application of Bank in accordance with law as aforesaid and pass appropriate orders accordingly. In event any order has already been passed by District Magistrate, it is open for petitioner to challenge it before appropriate authority.

Result: Petition is disposed of

JUDGMENT :

1. An application has been moved seeking extension of time for annexing/depositing the requisite court fee with the writ petition. In view of the grounds urged therein, it is allowed. The petitioner shall deposit the requisite court fee with the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from the date Registry shall start working normally.

2. CM no. 3319/2021 stands disposed of accordingly.

3. Heard Shri A. H. Furrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the UT respondents.

4. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has inter alia challenged the proceedings for possession of the secured assets.

5. It appears that the petitioner is a borrower and had mortgaged some of his property to secure the loan. On account of the default in payment of the borrowed money proceedings were initiated against him under the securitization. Now the bank has approached to the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the property.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not mortgaged the property in question and that the bank is trying to take possession of the additional land which has not been mortgaged.

7. The application of the bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act clearly describes the property which has been mortgaged. In case any of the property described therein has not been mortgaged the petitioner can take objections to that effect by filing an appropriate application before the District Magistrate.

8. It is apt to mention here that the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has to be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorized Officer of the establishment i.e., the Bank declaring certain things therein as provided under the aforesaid provision. It is only on the receipt of such application that the District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on being satisfied of the contents of the application, may pass suitable orders for the purposes of taking possession of the secured assets.

9. We are not aware if any final order has been passed by the District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, as is contemplated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has not challenged any such order. Therefore, in the event, if no order has been passed, the District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may consider the application of the Bank in accordance with law as aforesaid and pass appropriate orders accordingly. In the event any order has already been passed by the District Magistrate, it is open for the petitioner to challenge it before the appropriate authority.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

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