Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Amit Ahuja – Appellant
Versus
South Indian Bank Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order 30.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) whereby application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Re- construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 2002 Act') was allowed by the District Magistrate without any measure being taken under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act. The said order was further upheld by the District Magistrate on 14.11.2022 (Annexure R-1), which also in the considered opinion of this Court as per settled principles of law is not justifiable.
2. The question of law which, thus, arises in the present writ petition being a question of jurisdiction primarily calls upon us to exercise our powers under the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, as the Bank in its illegal manner had proceeded to take possession of the secured property secured without resorting to the measures under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act.
3. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the case of the petitioner was that a term loan for machinery to the extent of Rs.95 lakhs had been granted vide sanction letter date
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely barred in so far as those matters, which would fall for adjudication within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Remedy of appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act is not available to secured creditors against District Magistrate orders but only to aggrieved 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....
A secured creditor retains the right to seek possession of secured assets even after issuing a sale certificate without physical possession, and the relevant authority acts ministerially under Sectio....
The court established that the executing authority under the Securitization Act must comply with orders for possession and cannot raise disputes regarding the secured asset.
The court established that magistrates must assist secured creditors in enforcing possession orders under the Securitization Act without adjudicating disputes over the legitimacy of the claims.
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 p....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
