3WP 936.2018.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 936 OF 2018

(Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (HDFC Ltd.), Nagpur Vs. Sh. Sanjay s/o

Nandlal Agrawal & Anr.)

_________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions

Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. A.T. Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.H. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondents.

.....

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J. &

PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.

FEBRUARY 05, 2021.

PC :-

The petitioner before us is a secured

creditor within the meaning of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter “the Act”,

for short). It challenges an order dated November

29, 2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Nagpur (hereafter “the DRT”, for short) in

Securitisation Application No. 77/2017. By the

impugned order, the DRT granted interim stay on

the prayer of the borrowers, the respondents herein,

on condition that they deposit not less than 30% of

the dues mentioned in the demand notice issued

under Section 13(2) of the Act by December 06,

2017; in default thereof, the interim order of stay

would stand vacated.

3WP 936.2018.odt

2

2.

The impugned order is assailed by the

secured creditor primarily on the ground that the

order of the District Magistrate, Amravati, passed

under Section 14 of the Act could not have been

challenged in an application under Section 17 of the

Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court

reported in

(2014) 6 SCC 1 (Harshad

Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets

Reconstruction Company Limited And

Others). It is also challenged on the ground that the

DRT mechanically passed the order of stay without

considering that none of the factors on the fulfilment

whereof an interim stay could be granted existed in

the present case.

3.

We record the fairness of Mr. Purohit,

learned Advocate for the secured creditor in placing

before us a decision of the Supreme Court earlier in

point of time than

Harshad Govardhan

Sondagar (supra), reported in (2011) 2 SCC 782

(Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev And Others Vs.

State of Maharashtra And Others) where the

Supreme Court took a view that an action under

Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after

the stage contemplated by Section 13(4) is reached

and, therefore, the same would fall within the ambit

of Section 17(1) of the Act.

4.

We also place on record the submission

of Mr. Agrawal, learned Advocate for the

3WP 936.2018.odt

3

respondents, that the Supreme Court in its decision

reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413 (United Bank of

India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors.) also took

the view that after an action is taken under Section

14 of the Act, the borrower could avail his remedy by

filing an application under Section 17(1) of the Act.

5.

On reading the decisions of the Supreme

Court referred to above, there is seemingly a conflict

in views. While Harshad Govardhan Sondagar

(supra) says that an order of the District Magistrate

under Section 14 of the Act cannot be challenged in

an application under Section 17 of the Act in view of

the bar created by sub-section (3) of Section 14

thereof, the decisions in Satyawati Tondon and

Kanaiyalal Sachdev (supra) are authorities for the

proposition that once an order is passed under

Section 14 of the Act, it constitutes a measure

contemplated within the meaning of Section 13(4) of

the Act giving right to the borrower to invoke the

remedy provided by Section 17 of the Act. However,

the decisions can be reconciled and the seeming

conflict done away with.

6.

A plain and literal reading of sub-section

(3) of Section 14 of the Act, i.e., an order passed

under sub-section (1) is also