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

2022 Supreme(Ori) 109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JASWANT SINGH, M.S. RAMAN, JJ.
M/s. Maa Kalika Bhandar and Others – Appellants
Versus
The Collector and District Others – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.26500 of 2021
Decided on : 29-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.P. Misra, Mr. Soumya Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. L. Samantaray, Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Mr. Pranaya Mohanty, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Mr. Tutu Pradhan, Advocate

The District Magistrate is not required to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while examining applications filed by secured creditors under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy to challenge the action of the bank by filing an application before the DRT under Section 17 of the Act, 2002.

Headnote:

Opportunity of hearing not required for District Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Writ petitions dismissed

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners in both cases sought an opportunity of personal hearing before the District Magistrate (DM) while taking possession of mortgaged property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners claimed that the property was attached by the Income Tax Department before the mortgage, rendering the transaction void under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the DM is not required to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while examining applications filed by secured creditors under Section 14 of the Act. The court also found that the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy to challenge the action of the bank by filing an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the Act, 2002.

Issues: 1. Whether the DM is required to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while examining applications filed by secured creditors under Section 14 of the Act, 2002. 2. Whether the present petitions are maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners under Section 17 of the Act, 2002.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DM is not required to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while examining applications filed by secured creditors under Section 14 of the Act, 2002. The court also found that the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy to challenge the action of the bank by filing an application before the DRT under Section 17 of the Act, 2002.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions, stating that the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act, 2002.

JUDGMENT :

Jaswant Singh, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of both the aforementioned writ petitions as they involve similar facts and identical questions of law.

2. The Writ Petitions numbered W.P.(C) No.27775 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.26500 of 2021 are taken up together as they involve a common question and prayer i.e. an opportunity must have been provided by the DM/Collector while taking possession of the mortgaged property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (Hereinafter, "Act, 2002").

W.P.(C) No.26500 of 2021

3. The relevant facts of the Writ Petition numbered W.P.(C) No.26500 of 2021 is set out in brief hereunder. The Petitioner No.1 i.e. M/s. Maa Kalika Bhandar availed a cash credit loan of Rs. 22.50 crores from the Opposite Party No. 5/Punjab National Bank on 25.06.2016. The said loan was availed by mortgaging an immovable property under the ownership of Petitioner No. 3 i.e. Jay Kumar Jajodia. Due to financial indiscipline, the said loan account was declared NPA on 31.01.2018. A demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 13.02.2018 recalling outstanding liability of Rs.22,14,25,096.45/-(Twenty Two Crores Fourteen Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Ninety Six Fourty Five Paise) and symbolic possession of the property was taken vide a notice dated 17.04.2018 under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002. Further, the property was auctioned on 12.03.2019 wherein the Opposite Party No.4/Auction purchaser i.e. MGM Minerals Pvt. Ltd. was declared as the highest bidder and consequently, sale certificate has been issued in its favour owing to complete deposit of the whole bidding amount. Consequently, a challenge was laid to the said auction vide S.A No.41 of 2019 in the DRT by the petitioner, which has been admitted. Further, the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar and the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar have passed an interim order to maintain status-quo over the disputed property. The dispute arose when the Opposite Party No. 1/DM/Collector in Bank Misc. Case No.78 of 2018 passed an order dated 19.08.2021 on the application filed by the Opposite Party/Bank instructing the Police to help in acquiring the physical possession of the mortgaged property.

W.P.(C) No.27775 of 2021

4. The brief facts of W.P. (C) No.27775 of 2021 are that the petitioner No.1 i.e. M/s. Dwarikamayee Bhandar availed a Cash Credit Facility of Rs.470 lakhs from the Opposite Party No.5/Punjab National Bank on 25.08.2015 which was further enhanced to Rs.950 lakhs on 10.09.2016 by mortgaging various immovable properties standing in the name of the Petitioner No.2 i.e. Pawan Kumar Jajodia. The petitioner No.2 stood as a guarantor. Moreover, the petitioner No.2 is also the partner in the petitioner No.1 i.e. M/s. Dwarikamayee Bhandar. Due to financial indiscipline, the said loan account was declared NPA on 31.01.2018. A demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued to the petitioner on 03.02.2018 recalling outstanding liability of Rs.9,23,56,545.85/-(Nine Crores Twenty Three Lacs Fifty Six Thousands Five Hundred Fourty Five Eighty Five Paise). Further, the symbolic possession of the property was taken over on 17.04.2018. It is also pertinent to note that the auction with respect to two of the immovable properties has been successful and the auction purchasers have deposited the entire amount within the stipulated period. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar vide C.S. No.518 of 2019 passed an order dated 25.04.2019 to maintain status-quo over the disputed property. In the meantime, opposite party No.5/Punjab National Bank approached opposite party No. 1 -DM by filing an application U/s 14 of the 2002, on 13.06.2018 vide Bank Misc. Case No.77 of 2018 seeking to take physical possession the property in possession. The bank, preferred W.P.(C) No.1404 of 2019 before this Court, seeking disposal of its application filed U/s 14 before the District Magistrate, on an early date. The said pet

    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