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

2023 Supreme(UK) 686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
M/s Bansal Agro Products & Others - Petitioners
Versus
District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and Another - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2284 of 2023
Decided On : 17-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Atul Bansal.
For the Respondents:Mr. H.M. Raturi, Deputy Advocate General, Ms. Irum Zeba, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta.

The SARFAESI Act provides a specific framework for securitization and enforcement of security interest, and parties must adhere to its provisions. The jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the sufficiency of details in applications under Section 14 were key legal principles established in the judgment.

Headnote:

SARFAESI Act - Challenge to order under Section 14 - Section 14 - SARFAESI Act, 2002, Section 14, Section 13(2), Section 13(3A), Rule 8(1) - The court discussed the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly Section 14, and its requirements for application, notice, and possession of secured assets. The court also referred to relevant case laws to interpret the scope of challenging orders under Section 14 and the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a partnership firm and one of its partners, challenged the classification of their loan account as NPA and the subsequent order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of assets. They argued that the bank's actions were in violation of RBI guidelines and that the application under Section 14 did not include details of their representation under Section 13(3A). The bank contended that the order could be challenged under Section 17(4A) and that the petitioners had an alternate remedy through the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were aware of the notice under Rule 8(1) of the Rules but did not challenge it. It held that the grounds raised by the petitioners were not sustainable and dismissed the petition, stating that the details of the representation not being included in the application did not vitiate the order under Section 14.

Issues: Challenge to classification of loan account as NPA, validity of order under Section 14, jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, sufficiency of details in application under Section 14

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the SARFAESI Act is a self-contained Act and that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings but did not challenge them. It also clarified the requirements for application under Section 14 and the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed at the stage of admission, and the court found no reason to entertain it.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this petition is made to an order dated 26.07.2023, passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar with the related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 the firm is a partnership firm and the petitioner no.2 is one of its partners. One of the partners of the petitioner no.1 the firm Mayank Agarwal has died on 10.08.2022. The firm had got sanctioned Cash Credit Limit facility with regard to the rice mill from the respondent no. 2, the Nainital Bank Ltd (“the Bank”). The petitioners were maintaining their accounts regularly, but the respondent no.2, the Bank in utter violation of the guidelines and directives of the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), regarding classification of Non Performing Assets (“NPA”) classified the loan account of the petitioners firm as NPA on 28.10.2022. The respondent no. 2 the Bank thereafter, proceeded under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It is the case of the petitioners that notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act has never been served upon them. Thereafter, on an application of the respondent no.2, the Bank, the respondent no.1, the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar has passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 for taking possession of the assets.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that entire action of the respondent no.2, the Bank is in utter violation of the RBI guidelines; the accounts of the petitioners could not have been classified as NPA. He would raise the following points in his submission:-

    (i) A writ petition assailing an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable, in view of the law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and others, (2014) 6 SCC 1. Under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, an aggrieved person may ventilate his grievance under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, but action taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act may not be challenged in any other court as per Section 14 (3) of the SARFAESI Act.

(ii) The action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has not been as per law because an application that is required to be filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, requires to give all the details that are related to the matter. It is argued that the petitioners in response to the notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act have made a representation under Section 13 (3A) of the SARFAESI Act and this fact was necessarily required to be mentioned in the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, in view of clause (vii) of the first proviso to Section 14 (1), which reads as hereunder:-

“14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.- (1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor of if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him-

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

        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