Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Indian Bank vs S.K.Jeevanandam on 19 April, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 29769/2013
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27/04/2012
IN WP NO. 3488/2012 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)
INDIAN BANK PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
S.K.JEEVANANDAM RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 19/04/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Himanshu Munshi, Adv.
Mr. Manish Garani, Adv.
Mr. Durga Dutt, Adv.
Mr. G.P. Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M.P. Parthiban, Adv.
For Mr. S. Gowthaman, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VINOD LAKHINA
Date: 2016.04.25
16:55:45 IST [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
Reason:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4300 OF 2016 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.29769/2013] INDIAN BANK ...APPELLANT VERSUS S.K.JEEVANANDAM ...RESPONDENT ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is against an order of the High Court dated 27th April, 2012 by which the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act”) has been 2 reversed and the appellant - Bank has been directed to handover possession of the secured assets to the respondent – borrower.
3. The order of the High Court is based on one of its previous orders passed in the case of V. Nobel Kumar v. The Authorized Officer, Standard Chartered Bank [2011 (1) CTC 513]. The aforesaid order of the High Court in V. Nobel Kumar v. The Authorized Officer, Standard Chartered Bank (supra) has been reversed by this Court by its judgment dated 22nd August, 2013 which is now reported in Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and others [(2013) 9 SCC 620].
4. In Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and others (supra), this Court while reversing the judgment of the High 3 Court took the view that for seeking possession under the SARFAESI Act, prior to insertion of proviso to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in the year 2013, it was not required of the secured creditor to furnish any affidavit which has now been mandated. Nevertheless, in the case before it, such an affidavit had been filed by the secured creditor complying with all the requirements stipulated by the proviso brought in subsequently. This Court also noticed the fact that in the case before it though notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the borrower, the borrower had remained quiet and did not respond to the same. In such circumstances, this Court held that there was no infirmity in the order of the learned Magistrate ordering possession to be taken from the borrower notwithstanding the fact that the basis of the satisfaction 4 reached was not expressly recorded in the order of the learned Magistrate.
5. The facts of the present case are identical with those of Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and others (supra). The appellant – Bank had filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate seeking orders with regard to possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. We have perused the said affidavit. In the said affidavit it is stated that notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the borrower on 25.8.2002 and symbolic possession of the asset was taken on 11.3.2005 by publishing a notice in a local newspaper. There was no response whatsoever from the borrower. The details of the amount due and the basis of the same, namely, the details of the mortgage have also been set out in the affidavit 5 filed by the appellant – Bank. It is on the basis of the said affidavit that the learned Magistrate had passed the order pursuant whereto the warrant to take possession of the property was issued on 8.6.2011.
6. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent, namely, that the learned Magistrate did not record any satisfaction before directing the warrant to be issued leaves us unconvinced. The requirement of recording of satisfaction that the affidavit discloses the essential facts stipulated by the proviso to Section 14 has come in only after insertion of the proviso in the year 2013. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and others (supra) and the view has been taken that the learned Magistrate at the 6 stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was not specifically required to record any satisfaction on record the existence of any particular fact. Even otherwise if the above proposition, prior to the insertion of the proviso to Section 14 in the year 2013, is to be tested from the standpoint of every judicial order being based upon and prompted by requisite satisfaction of the Court, it must be acknowledged that the existence of satisfaction for a species of judicial orders is not dependent on the existence of reasons recorded in the order itself. The order under Section 14 of the Act, prior to the amendment belongs to the aforesaid specie of judicial orders.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the reversal of the judgment of the High Court on which reliance was placed 7 in the impugned order in Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and others (supra), we set aside the order of the High Court dated 27th April, 2012 and further direct the respondent – borrower to handover possession of the asset in question to the appellant – Bank within a period of four weeks from today.
8. Consequently and for the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI APRIL 19, 2016