Dcb Bank Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 17]

Gujarat High Court

Dcb Bank Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GUJ 93

Bench: A.Y. Kogje

        C/SCA/3798/2020                                           ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3798 of 2020

================================================================
                            DCB BANK LIMITED
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SS ACHARYA(3272) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                              Date : 11/02/2020

                               ORAL ORDER

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is that the respondent District Magistrate is not deciding the application dated 07.12.2018 filed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) though the statute specifies the particular time limit within which such application has to be decided.

2. As the order is for the purpose of compliance of statutory provision, formal notice is not found necessary.

Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 21:55:19 IST 2020 C/SCA/3798/2020 ORDER

3. Mr. S. S. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Borrowers having failed to repay the amounts, the authorized officers of the Petitioner Bank was constrained to move the aforementioned Application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Respondent No:2 on 07.12.2018. Inter alia praying for the assistance for taking physical possession of the immovable properties (Secured asset) exclusively under the charge of the Bank and to hand over the same to the Bank. The said application is yet not taken for hearing.

4. Mr. S. S. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order passed by this Court on 05.09.2019 in Special Civil Application No.13486 of 2019 in which this Court has given specific direction to the Collector to take a decision within a stipulated time. The said order reads as under:

"1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:

"9(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the learned Collector and District Magistrate, Vadodara for expeditious disposal of the Securitisation Application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 13.12.2018 in accordance with law authorizing any subordinate officer to him to take possession of secured assets and forward the same to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks or within stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper."

Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 21:55:19 IST 2020 C/SCA/3798/2020 ORDER

2. It is the case of the Bank that has filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the respondent No.2 on 13.12.2018.

3. Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and submits that there is time bound schedule within which the respondent No.2 ought to have decide the application.

3.1 Mr.Dharmesh V. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that though repeated requests have been made to respondent No.2 to decide such application, no such decision has been taken.

4. Reliance is also placed on an order passed by this Court on 10.4.2019 in the case of same petition where this Court after reproducing the relevant provisions of the Section, directed the respondent No.2 - Collector to decide the application filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

5. Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner invites identical order in the present case.

6. In view of the order dated 10.4.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.5309 of 2019, similar directions are issued as under :

7. On reading the provisions of Section 14, it is clear that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate before whom the application under Section 14 is filed, after satisfying the contents of the affidavit filed by the secured creditors has to pass appropriate orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured asset within a period of 30 days from the date of application, and not later than 60 days. Hence, the respondent No.2 is hereby directed to adhere to the time limit prescribed in the said provisos and take appropriate decision on the application filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

8. Subject to the said direction, the petition is disposed of. Direct Service is permitted."

Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 21:55:19 IST 2020 C/SCA/3798/2020 ORDER

5. Mr. Acharya further points out that even this Court on the earlier occasion has passed similar order in Special Civil Application No.5309 of 2019 where similar directions were issued.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appears on an advance copy and he has no objection if the identical directions are issued to the Collector. Accordingly the following directions are issued.

7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to amendment in Section-14 of of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which now reads as under:

"Amendment of section-14- In the principal Act, in section 14, in sub-section(1),-

(i) in the second proviso, after the words "secured assets", the words "within a period of thirty days from the date of application" shall be inserted;

(ii) after the second proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

"Provided [also] that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days."

8. Considering the date of the application made by the petitioner- Bank, the Magistrate will have to take into Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 21:55:19 IST 2020 C/SCA/3798/2020 ORDER consideration the amended provision to Section-14 with regard to exercise of powers under Section-14. In any case of the matter, it is obligatory upon the Magistrate to take a decision on an application filed by the petitioner- Bank.

9. Hence, the respondent is hereby directed to adhere to the time limit prescribed in the said proviso and convey the outcome on the application dated 07.12.2018 filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

10. The petition is disposed of with the above direction.

Direct service is permitted.

Sd/-

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) Caroline Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 21:55:19 IST 2020

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court