IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, LALIT BATRA, JJ.
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate, Ludhiana – Respondents
CWP No. 11641 of 2020
Decided On : 18-04-2024
SARFAESI - Writ Petition - Section 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4), 14, 26-D - The court interpreted provisions of the SARFAESI Act, concluding that the 15-day response period for objections is directory, not mandatory, influencing the decision to allow the bank's petitions for possession of secured assets.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner Bank issued notices under the SARFAESI Act due to non-payment by the respondent companies, leading to objections from the companies that were rejected by the Bank. The District Magistrate dismissed the Bank's applications for assistance in taking possession of secured assets, prompting the Bank to file writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act are directory, allowing for some flexibility in the response time to borrower objections. The court ruled that the District Magistrate exceeded his authority by dismissing the Bank's applications based on this interpretation.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act are mandatory or directory, and whether the District Magistrate had the authority to adjudicate on the objections raised by the borrowers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 15-day response requirement in Section 13(3A) is directory, and failure to comply does not invalidate the Bank's actions under the SARFAESI Act, especially when no prejudice to the borrowers was demonstrated.
Result: The writ petitions are allowed, and the impugned orders are quashed, directing the District Magistrate to assist the Bank in taking possession of the secured assets.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. :- Since both the writ petition(s) (supra), involve common questions of facts and law, thus, they are amenable to be decided through a common verdict.
2. Be that as it may, the facts of both the writ petition(s) (supra) are yet required to be separately delineated.
Facts of CWP-11641-2020
3. That respondent No. 3-company became granted various credit facilities, thus by the lending institution concerned, but against various secured assets. On account of non-adherence to financial discipline by respondent No. 3, thus the apposite debt was on 30.12.2014, hence classified as Non Performing Assets.
4. The petitioner Bank issued notice on 30.07.2016 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as the ‘SARFAESI Act’) thereby calling upon respondent No. 3 and its directors and guarantors to discharge in full its financial borrowings but within 60 days from the date of the notice (Annexure P-1A).
5. That respondent No. 3 filed theretos its objections under Section 13 (3A) of SARFAESI Act. The said objections were duly considered but became rejected by the petitioner-Bank, through an order drawn thereons on 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-3).
6. That notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 was issued and the Bank took symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties.
7. Thereafter, the erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur merged with the State Bank of India. After merger, the petitioner-State Bank of India again issued possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act.
8. The petitioner-Bank made application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, on 10.01.2018, wherebys the respondent No. 1-District Magistrate, Ludhiana, was requested to provide assistance for the taking over of possession of the secured assets, as, described in the application.
9. Respondent No. 3 filed its objections to the said application. The Bank submitted its reply dated 28.03.2018 to respondent No. 1 against the objections made by respondent No. 3.
10. Respondent No. 1 through the impugned order (Annexure P-10) dismissed the application as became preferred under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, by the lending institution concerned.
11. The petitioner-Bank filed CWP-23399 of 2018 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.09.2018 with liberty to avail alternative remedies as available to it in accordance with law.
12. The petitioner-Bank got security interest registered with the Central Registry under Section 26-D of the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, a 2nd application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was moved by the Bank before respondent No. 1.
13. Respondent No. 1 through an order drawn on 12.04.2019 (Annexure P-15 again rejected the apposite application of the petitioner-Bank.
14. Thereafter, the Bank issued fresh notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, through registered post, which became pasted on the premises concerned. Moreover, the said notice was also published in newspapers but the above notices, were so respectively pasted and published but only after withdrawal being made of all the earlier notices.
15. Subsequently, a fresh application cast under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, was preferred by the lending institution concerned before the District Magistrate concerned.
16. However, through an order drawn thereons on 30.12.2019 (Annexure P-18), the respondent No. 1, rather rejected the said application, on the ground that the Bank has not complied with the provisions of Section 13 (3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, inasmuch as, the order rejecting the borrower’s objections becoming not been passed within 15 days from the date of receipt of representation or objection, as made, by the borrower, to the notice issued to it by the lending institution, thus under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
17. The drawing of the o
M/s. R.D. Jain and Co versus Capital First Ltd.’ (AIR 2022 SC 4820)
ITC Ltd. Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. and others’ reported in (2018) 15 SCC 99
Balakrishna Rama Tarle (D) through LRS versus Phoenix Arc Private Limited’ (AIR 2022 SC 4756)
Standard Chartered Bank versus V Noble Kumar’ (2013) 9 SCC 620
AI
The court established that the 15-day response period in Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act is directory, not mandatory, allowing the Bank to proceed with possession despite delays.
The court emphasized the mandatory timeline for deciding applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to facilitate timely recovery of secured assets, indicating any undue delay undermines the o....
In SARFAESI Act proceedings, a magistrate is not required to notify borrowers prior to granting possession, emphasizing procedural compliance over notice requirements.
Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, a court is not required to provide notice to a debtor or consider claims from third parties regarding secured assets during the possession proceedings.
The court affirmed that no notice is required to be issued to a debtor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act when taking possession of secured assets.
The SARFAESI Act, 2002 mandates that applications under Section 14 must be disposed of expeditiously without requiring notice to borrowers, as the process is ministerial and non-adjudicatory.
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.