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

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 69 of 2019

1. Smt. Sudha Khandelwal, W/o Arvind Khandelwal, Aged about 47 years, Resident of 61 Naharnaka Chowk-Dhanitola Ward No. 33 – Dhamtari, District –

Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2. Shri Arvind Khandelwal, S/o Satish Khandelwal, 52 years, Resident of 61 Naharnaka Chowk-Dhanitola Ward No. 33 – Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

3. Madhuri Khandelwal, W/o Suryakant Khandelwal, Aged about 47 years, Resident of 261 Naharnaka Chowk Mahima Sagar Ward No. 43 Dhamtari (C.G.)

4. Suryakant Khandelwal, S/o Satish Kumar Khandelwal, Aged about 53 years, Resident of 261 Naharnaka Chowk Mahima Sagar Ward No. 43, Dhamtari (C.G.)

5 . M/s Sudha Rice Processing Private Ltd., Sihawas Road, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

6. M/s Sudha Rice Processing Private Ltd., Khasra No. 1282/1, 1289/10, 1282/17, 1289 of part Patwari Halka No. 16, Bandobast, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.)

7. Goyal Para Boiling Paddy, Shankar Dah Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)

--Petitioner/non-applicants Versus

1. M/s Religare Finvest Limited Finance Ltd. A company registered under Companies Act,, Represented through its Authorised Officer i.e. State/Branch office at A- Block Shop No. 02 First Floor Maruti Buisness Park, G.E. Road Raipur (C.G.) Pin -492001

2. The Collector, Dhamtari cum District Magistrate, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

---Respondent/applicant Writ Petition (227) No. 70 of 2019

1. Shri Arvind Khandelwal, S/o Satish Khandelwal, 52 years, Resident of 61 Naharnaka Chowk-Dhanitola Ward No. 33 – Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Sudha Khandelwal, W/o Arvind Kumar Khandelwal, Aged about 47 years, Resident of 61 Naharnaka Chowk-Dhanitola Ward No. 33 – Dhamtari, District –

Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

3. M/s Shri Padmabalaji Rice Mill, Village – Mudkhusara, Tahsil Gurur, District Dhamtari, 4. M/s Shri Padmabalaji Rice Mill, Pvt., Khasra No. 2481/1 and 2481/3 of part Patwari Halka No. 16, Village Danitola, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.)

---Petitioner/non-applicants Versus

1. M/s Religare Finvest Limited Finance Ltd. A company registered under Companies Act, Represented through its Authorised Officer i.e. State/Branch office at A- Block Shop No. 02 First Floor Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road Raipur (C.G.) Pin -492001

2. The Collector, Dhamtari cum District Magistrate, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

---Respondents/applicants Writ Petition (227) No. 72 of 2019

1. Shri Jagdish Dewangan, S/o Ishwar Chand Dewangan, Aged about 47 Years, Resident of Bhagyoday Furniture Mart, Bathena Chowk – Dhamtari, District –

Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Ratna Devi Dewangan, W/o Jagdish Dewangan 42 years, Resident of Bhagyoday Furniture Mart, Bathena Chowk – Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari, Chhatiisgarh

3. Bhagyoday furniture Udhog, Bhathena Chowk, Raipur Road, Dhamtari (C.G.) 4. Bhagyoday Furniture Udhog, at Khasra No. 113/18 and 113/4 Bhathena, Ward No. 6, P.H. No. 13, R.I. Circle Bothali, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.)

5. New Dhirendra Furniture Mart, Raipur Road, Bhathena Chowk, Dhamtari (C.G.)

---Petitioner/non-applicants Versus

1. M/s Religare Finvest Limited Finance Ltd. A company registered under Companies Act,, Represented through its Authorised Officer i.e. State/Branch office at A- Block Shop No. 02 First Floor Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road Raipur (C.G.) Pin -492001

2. The Collector, Dhamtari cum District Magistrate, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

---Respondents/applicants For Petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Govt. Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Advocates:
['ASHUTOSH SHUKLA', '', 'B K SHUKLA', 'A G', '', 'RAJEEV BHARAT']

Order on Board

29.04.2019 (1) In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.12.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth, “SARFASI Act, 2002”).

(2) Shri Rajeev Bharat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 would submit that against the impugned order, remedy of the petitioners is to approach before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFASI Act, 2002 in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. And another v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through District Magistrate Ghaziabad and another1.

(4) In view of above submissions made on behalf of respondent No.1 , learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners may be granted some time to approach before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

(5) Be that as it may, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra), remedy of the petitioners is to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFASI Act, 2002 and the

1 AIR 2018 SC 5383

instant writ petitions as framed and filed are not maintainable, therefore, three weeks' time is granted to the petitioners to approach before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for questioning the impugned order.

(6) For the period of three weeks, interim order granted on 13.02.2019 shall remain in force.

(7) With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand finally disposed of.

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