IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH th ON THE 27 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 6395 of 2024 CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD.

THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER RAVI SAHU Versus INDAL SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajay Sharma-Advocate for petitioner.

ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak

1. Heard on admission.

2. The instant Miscellaneous petition is preferred by petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India taking exception to the conditions imposed in order dated 20/09/2024 passed by CJM, Gwalior in proceedings undertaken by petitioner as Secured Creditor purportedly under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'the SARFAESI Act').

3. The grievance of petitioner as echoed in this petition is that as Secured Creditor, proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act were taken by petitioner and thereafter, an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was preferred before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Gwalior. The application was filed on 20/03/2024 and the same was Signature Not Verified decided on 20/09/2024 i.e. after six months from the date of its filing. In the said order, although application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was allowed but order carries certain conditions. Those conditions are as follows:-

(i) Petitioner as Secured Creditor shall issue notice of order so passed by CJM and for taking possession of mortgaged asset to the Borrower.

(ii) 45 days' time would be given to borrower for moving any application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, if he/she/it desires so.

(iii) Appropriate application would be moved by Secured Creditor regarding handing over of relevant documents of mortgaged property with a prayer for handing over of possession of mortgaged property.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that as per the scheme of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the application so preferred by Secured Creditor is to be decided within 30 days in normal circumstances. However, as per proviso added in 2016, it should not exceed in aggregate 60 days. Therefore, at best, 60 days' outer limit is prescribed in the SARFAESI Act. In this matter, complete 6 months have passed since filing of application. Besides that, the purpose of the very Act was to regulate securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest at the earliest. Therefore, once application under Section 14 Signature Not Verified of the SARFAESI Act is allowed, then notice to borrower is to be issued by the concerned Tehsildar and not at the instance of petitioner. Besides that, there is no prescription of law to wait for 45 days to get the period of limitation lapsed (for borrower to prefer application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act) and that was never been the intention of the Act. Even otherwise, petitioner is not required to submit all the documents before the Tehsildar because all the documents have already been filed by the petitioner/Secured Creditor in proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. At best, those copies can be again provided to the Tehsildar.

5. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the approach of authority is erroneous and arbitrary. Despite order being passed in favour of petitioner, the petitioner is again fastened with certain liabilities/duties to perform which are contrary to letter and spirit of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, according to petitioner, learned CJM exceeded its jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner is heard at length.

7. Since application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is already allowed and notices are to be sent by Tehsildar to the borrowers; therefore, for clarification, this order is being passed dispensing with the service of respondents. They already received the notice under Secti