Madhya Pradesh High Court
Authorised Officer And Chief Manager vs Prafulla Kumar Maheshwari on 1 May, 2018
..1..
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Appeal No. 17/2018
Authorized Officer and Chief Manager v. Prafulla Kumar Maheshwari
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-05-2018
Shri A.C. Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Maindiratta, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri B.D. Singh, Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 2 and 3.
The appellant, a secured creditor, invoked the jurisdiction of the Distrcit Magistrate under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act). The learned District Magistrate passed an order on 30 th November, 2016 as modified on 23rd March 2017.
The borrower, respondent herein, challenged the said order before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A No. 121/2017. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application on 9th May 2017 holding that an application under Section 17 of the Act is not maintainable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Writ Petitioner filed a petition before this Court challenging the said order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The learned Single Bench allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order passed by District Magistrate on 30th October 2016 as modified on 23rd March 2017 but granted liberty to the Bank to file fresh application under Section 14 of the Act.
The learned Single Judge relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of Chhattisgarh in W.P.(C) No. 1686/2017 (M/s. City Mall Vikash Pvt. Ltd and others v. Punjab National Bank and another) wherein it was held that against an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, the remedy of aggrieved person is before this Court only. However, the said judgment has been distinguished by Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 19028/2017 [Sunil Garg vs. Bank of Baroda] decided on 16-4-2018, wherein it has been held that remedy of an ..2..
aggrieved person against an order passed by District Magistrate is before Debts Recovery Tribunal as provided under Section 17 of the Act.
In view of the said fact, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Bench is contrary to the view of this Court in Sunil Garg's case (Supra). Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal on 9 th of May 2017 is also set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide an application under Section 17 of the Act in accordance with law expeditiously.
(Hemant Gupta) (Atul Sreedharan)
Chief Justice Judge
vivek
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI
Date: 2018.05.02 14:18:26 +05'30'