bsb

wp 6769.22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6769 OF 2022

Incred Financial Service Ltd.

Through its Authorized Officer

....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

and others

....Respondents

Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. D. R. Kale, G. P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J. &

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATED : JULY 04, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

Petitioner is a financial institution which, as a secured

creditor within the meaning of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter ‘Securitisation Act’), had

extended financial assistance to one Balasaheb Madhukar

Khomare (hereafter ‘borrower’). The borrower having failed to

liquidate his dues, the petitioner invoked the provisions of

section 13 of the Securitisation Act. To take over possession of

the secured assets, the petitioner had subsequently invoked

section 14 of the Securitisation Act by presenting an application

before the District Magistrate, Ahmednagar. The district

magistrate passed an order dated January 12, 2022 granting

the prayer of the petitioner. The Tahsildar cum Taluka

Executive Magistrate, Ahmednagar (hereafter ‘tahsildar’) was

authorized by the district magistrate, in terms of provisions

contained in section 14(1-A) of the Securitisation Act to take

possession of the secured assets and forward the same to the

petitioner. It appears from Exhibit C being a communication

signed by the tahsildar on March 29, 2022 that he had further

authorized the Talathi, Bhingar (hereafter ‘talathi’) to take

possession of the secured assets on May 04, 2022 at 11.00

a.m. The talathi, allegedly, did not comply with the order dated

March 29, 2022 of the tahsildar for which the petitioner had

lodged a complaint before the tahsildar on May 20, 2022. Even

such complaint did not invoke any response, which has

triggered this writ petition dated June 28, 2022.

2.

Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submits that the tahsildar having been authorized by

the district magistrate to take possession in terms of the

provisions contained in section 14(1-A) of the Securitisation

Act, such tahsildar could not direct the talathi to take such

possession. In support of such contention, reliance has been

placed by Mr. Gangakhedkar on an order dated December 12,

2019 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court while

disposing of Writ Petition Stamp No. 26048 of 2019.

Accordingly, a prayer is made for direction to the tahsildar to

take possession of the secured assets and to hand over the

same to the petitioner.

3.

Mr. Kale, learned Government Pleader for the respondents

submits that if an appropriate order is made by the Court, the

same shall be complied with by the tahsildar.

4.

We, accordingly, fix July 11, 2022 at 12.00 noon as the

date and time, when the tahsildar shall remain present

personally at the site, take possession of the secured assets

and forward the same to the petitioner.

5.

It is made clear that the tahsildar may not hand over the

secured assets to the petitioner, if prior to the scheduled date

and time mentioned hereinabove, the borrower places before

him an order from the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal or the

High Court restraining the tahsildar from taking over

possession of the secured assets or if the order under section

14 of the Securitisation Act is stayed by either of the above two

fora.

6.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid

directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

[ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]