Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SHEEL NAGU, CJ, SANJIV BERRY, J
Punjab National Bank – Appellant
Versus
The District Magistrate, Gurugram, Haryana and others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under sarfaesi for asset possession. (Para 1) |
| 2. court underscores the importance of statutory duties. (Para 2) |
| 3. court directs execution of orders within specified time. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner/Bank aggrieved by non-execution of the orders dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) and 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned District Magistrate, Gurugram, under the provisions of Section 14 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for brevity).
2. It is rather surprising that learned District Magistrate, Gurugram, or the concerned Tehsildar (Respondents No. 1 and 2) have failed to discharge their statutory duty of assisting and handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Bank.
2.1 Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) are a huge burden on the public exchequer, banking and financial system, and, thus, prompt enforcement of recovery mechanism under the SARFAESI Act is paramount for liquidity in the system.
3. In view of the above, this court by way of writ of mandamus directs learned Di
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
