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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7801

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, JJ
Capri Global Housing Finnance Ltd. Represented By Its Authorized Officer Mr Preetam Bhargav – Appellant
Versus
The District Magistrate – Respondent
WP 20471/2024



Advocates:
Abhishek Tugnawat,Advocate General

The District Magistrate has a statutory obligation to decide applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within thirty days.

Headnote:(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 - Petition filed under Article 226 challenging inaction of District Magistrate in deciding application for possession of secured asset - Petitioner, a loan advancing company, sought possession after borrower defaulted, but application remained undecided - Court directed District Magistrate to decide the application within thirty days. (Paras 1, 2, 8)

(B) Statutory Obligation - The District Magistrate has a statutory duty to decide applications under Section 14 within thirty days, failing which the petitioner may seek judicial intervention. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company, extended a loan secured by an equitable mortgage. Due to default, the account was classified as Non-Performing Assets, and the petitioner sought possession of the secured asset through an application under Section 14, which was not decided by the District Magistrate.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Magistrate is statutorily obligated to decide the application within thirty days and directed compliance.

Issues: The main issue was whether the District Magistrate was failing to fulfill the statutory duty to decide the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the District Magistrate's duty under Section 14, stating that failure to act within the stipulated time frame necessitates judicial intervention.

Result: Petition disposed of with a direction to decide the application within thirty days.

ORDER

Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not challenging any specific order, but is aggrieved by the inaction of respondent no.1/ District Magistrate, Mandsaur in not deciding the application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' hereinafter) filed by the petitioner.

2 . Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of advancing loan facilities to its customers. The petitioner had extended loan to the borrower/customer to the tune of Rs. 9,36,720/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Only) and in order to secure the repayment of said loan created equitable mortgage/security interest in respect of the mortgaged property i.e. Revenue Survey No. 21/1/Ka, area 555 Sq. Ft. (51.57 Sq. mtr) situated at Gram Ghanshyamoura Road se Door Tehsil Ashta, District: Sehore, M.P. 466116 (hereinafter referred to as secured asset). Due to default in payment of EMIs', account of borrower was classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA). Thereafter, petitioner had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the respondents No. 2 to 4. Subsequently, notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was published in the newspaper and affixed on the properties of the borrowers. Since the respondents failed to handover the physical possession of the secured asset, petitioner had moved an application dated 31.05.2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the respondents which has not been decided by the respondent No.1 till date.

Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.1 is not complying with the mandate of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the possession of the secured assets is not being provided to the petitioner. The primary and mandatory duty cast on the Respondent No.1 under Section 14 of the Act, is not being discharged in spite of repeated requests and demands by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, a direction to respondent No.1 be issued to decide the pending application as expeditiously as possible. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 23.11.2023 in Writ Petition No. 26170/2023 passed by this Court in case of Poonawalla Housing Finance Ltd. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

4 . Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under: (a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and (b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor:

    [Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorized officer of the secured creditor, declaring that---
    (i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application;
    (ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period;
    (iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub-clause (ii)above;
    (iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount;
    (v) consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non-
    performing asset;
    (vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

                        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