1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (C) No. 766 of 2020

India Infoline Housing Finance Limited, A Housing Finance Company

Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered

Office At India Infoline Housing Finance Limited, 12A-10, 13th Floor,

Parinee Crescenzo, No. C-38, And C -39, G - Block, Behind MCA,

Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051 And Branch

Office At India Infoline Housing Finance Limited, 1st Floor, Nagdev

Plaza, Block - A, Kachahari Chowk Jail Road, Raipur - 492 001,

Represented By Its Authorised Officer - Mr. Rajbeer Singh Siddhu, Age

27 Yrs, S/o Harjeet Singh Siddhu, Collection Manager, MD - 50,

Hirapur, Raipur

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. District Magistrate Raipur

2. Mr. Vishal Chopda House No. 8, State Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar,

Tikrapara, Raipur - 492001 Also At Chopda's Chasma Ghar, Shop D/7,

Ravi Bhavan, Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur

3. Dipali Chopda, House No. 8, State Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar,

Tikrapara, Raipur - 492001

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate

For State

:

Mr. Somkant Verma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order On Board

27.02.2020

1. The relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an

appropriate direction to the respondent no.1 to take an early decision

2

on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the

Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial of Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “the SARFAESI Act”).

2. According to the petitioner, in the instant case, the application under

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed as early as on 19.09.2017

and the matter till date is pending before the respondent no.1 without

any specific purpose.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since no

adjudicatory function has to be performed by the respondent no.1 while

entertaining and deciding an application under Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act, the proceeding should not take this much long time or

else the very purpose of the provision of law becomes redundant.

4. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to a recent decision passed

by this Court in WPC No. 245/2020 in the case of DCB Bank Limited

Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others decided on 05.02.2020. This

Court while deciding the said writ petition in paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 has

held as under:

“ So far as the proceedings drawn by respondent No.2 under

Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act is concerned, particularly on the

issue whether notice has to be issued under Section 14 or not, it

would be relevant at this juncture to refer to a recent Division

Bench Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

of Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs. Shri Carnet Elias

Fernandes Vermalayam decided on 13.07.2018 wherein the

Division Bench in very categorical terms in paragraph 27 to 29

have held as under :-

“27. We do not find any merit in the said argument as well.

The issue raised was a question of fact as to whether the

3

petitioner is in possession of the W A No. 784/2018 property

in question on the basis of lease agreement. The said

judgment refers to the Supreme Court judgment reported as

(2014) 6 SCC 1 (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs.

International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and

others) to hold that such question is required to be decided

while considering an application under Section 14 of the Act.

But, present is not a case where any such question is

required to be decided. The property in question is

mortgaged in favour of the appellant; therefore, it is a

secured asset. In respect of secured assets, the District

Magistrate is duty bound to hand over physical possession

to the secured creditor in terms of Section 14 of the Act.

Therefore, such judgment provides no assistance to the

argument raised.

28. Coming to the argument that opport