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
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:
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.