Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, ALOK AWASTHI
Ravi Joshi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as "SARFAESI Act, 2002").
02. At the outset, learned counsel raised point regarding maintainability of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on the ground that an earlier application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the same secured asset had already been filed and disposed of. It is contended that a repeated application is not maintainable.
03. Counsel for the respondent bank argued that there is no bar under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to file repeated application. The principle of res judicata would not apply.
04. The similar issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench at Hyderabad in the case of M/s Sri. Balaji Centrifugal Castings V/s M/s ICICI Bank Limited rep. by its Authorized Officer, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad and another, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 368 that whether the bank has a right to invoke Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as one time measure or
The District Magistrate's role under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is ministerial, requiring prompt action without adjudicating disputes between parties.
(1) Possession of secured asset – Powers exercisable by CMM/DM under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act are ministerial step – Section 14 of SARFAESI Act does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points ....
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.
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....
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....
A District Magistrate's authority under the SARFAESI Act is administrative; subsequent orders can be made to modify the officer assigned for asset possession without it being deemed functus officio.
Authorized officer is not expected to adjudicate the contentious issues raised by the concerned parties but only verify the compliance referred to in the first proviso of Section 14 and being satisfi....
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
