Punjab National Bank vs State Of Chhattisgarh 23 Wpc/828/2018 ... on 28 March, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 18]

Chattisgarh High Court

Punjab National Bank vs State Of Chhattisgarh 23 Wpc/828/2018 ... on 28 March, 2018

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                         1

                                                                           NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         Writ Petition (C) No. 866 of 2018

        Punjab National Bank Main Branch Raipur, Lalganga City Mart, Moti Bagh
        Chowk Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Authorised Officer
        R. Rajagopalan Iyer, S/o Late Shri Ramamoorthi, Aged About 59 Years,
        Presently Posted As Chief Manager As Well As General Power Of Attorney
        Holder., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue,
        Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
        District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     2. Collector And District Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
        District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     3. M/s Vidit Trading Private Limited, GF Palace, Kashiram Nagar, Ring Road,
        No. 1, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Director, Shri Subhash Sharma.,
        District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     4. Arogya Mandal, Through Shri Sunil Kumar (Guarantor), 42 Shala Marg,
        Choubey Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate.

For State : Mr. S. P. Kale, Dy. G. A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 28/03/18

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank would submit that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is pending consideration before the District Magistrate since 21.07.2015 and has not been decided till date.

2. Learned State counsel would submit that the application will be considered and decided expeditiously.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Keeping in view the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it will be expedient to direct the District Magistrate to consider and decide the petitioner's application expeditiously preferably within a period of 30 days from today.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court