Point of Law: Section 17 of Act contemplates any grievance being carried to appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal exercising jurisdiction in respect of any measure adopted by secured creditor under Section 13(4) of Act.

Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records and orders of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No. 4841 of 2019 dated 7.1.2020 ordering the taking over the possession of the property and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and directing the 1st respondent / Bank to handover the possession to the petitioner herein.)

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ.

1. The petitioner seeks the following prayers in this writ petition:

(a) issue ad-interim direction to the 1st respondent herein to return the lock and keys of the property which they got through the Advocate-Commissioner in Crl.M.P.No.4841 of 2019 on 23.03.2021;

(b) issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the orders made in Crl.M.P.No.4841 of 2019 dated 07.01.2020 in the proceeding before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and further directing the 1st respondent to handover the possession to the petitioner herein and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case andthus render justice.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent secured creditor has exposed the petitioner to double jeopardy in the sense that the second creditor has proceeded against the petitioner in an arbitral reference and has also obtained an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

3. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent secured creditor has misled the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by making false allegations and obtaining an order that prejudices the petitioner herein.

4. The secured creditor is represented and submits that in view of the arbitration agreement contained in the loan agreement executed by the parties, the adjudication of the secured creditor’s claim has to be by way of arbitration. However, the secured creditor also maintains that the secured creditor has a right under the Act of 2002 to proceed against the secured assets and the secured creditor has taken appropriate steps accordingly. The secured creditor clarifies that the arbitral reference pertains only to the monetary claim and does not pertain to the securities furnished by the borrower.

5. The second relief sought in the writ petition seems to be squarely against the order dated January 7, 2020 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. Such order is certainly amenable to challenge in this jurisdiction, as it has to be regarded as an administrative order, but the challenge has to be confined to the order being in error or in excess of jurisdiction or being otherwise palpably unconscionable or grossly disproportionate.

6. Proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 are purely administrative in nature and a feature of the Act of 2002 is that it provides executive assistance to the secured creditor to obtain possession of a secured asset or documents pertaining thereto upon making a request to the persons specified in Section 14 of the Act. The scheme of Section 14 of the Act is such that the authority approached under such provision has only to satisfy itself that the relevant declarations as indicated in the provision have been furnished. Once such authority sees that the declarations have been furnished, the authority cannot go into the veracity of the declarations, but mush accept them at face value. The authority approached under Section 14 of the Act has no jurisdiction to give notice to a borrower or afford a hearing to the borrower or otherwise seek to ascertain the veracity of the declarations furnished.

7. Section 14 of the Act indicates a time-line within which assistance as sought by the secured creditor has to be extended, to the extent such assistance is