Gujarat High Court
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs District Magistrate on 3 March, 2022
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13562 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
=================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers
may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or
not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see
the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a
substantial question of law as to
the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
=================================================
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & 2 other(s)
=================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTH NAYAK FOR MR NAVIN PAHWA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE for THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357)
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, AGP for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
MR PAVAN S GODIAWALA(2936) for the Respondent(s)
No. 2,3
=================================================
Page 1 of 22
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022
C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 03/03/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak for learned Senior Advocate Mr. Navin Pahwa for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr. Pavan S. Godiawala for respondent nos. 2 and
3.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr. Pavan S. Godiawala waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3.
3. This Court (Coram : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari, As Her Ladyship was then) passed the following order on 24th August, 2015 :
"Heard Mr.Navin K. Pahwa, learned advocate for Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates on behalf of the petitioner.
It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is unsustainable in law, as the view that an assignee bank cannot enforce the security created in favour of the Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 assignor bank has been negatived by the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Limited and others, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 1.
Issue Notice for final disposal, returnable on 07.09.2015.
In addition to the normal mode of service, the learned advocate for the petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents through RPAD, at the cost of the petitioner."
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24th June, 2015 passed by the Respondent as being contrary to law, in breach of the principles of natural justice as also violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent to take action for taking possession of the secured assets and hand over possession of the same to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity, within a period of 2 weeks or such other period as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, after allowing the Application of the Petitioner dated 5th January Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 2015;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (B);
(D)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to award costs of this petition;
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper are deemed fit, in the interest of justice;"
5. Brief facts of the case are as under :
5.1) The petitioner is a banking company and is an assignee of ICICI Bank Ltd. Various credit facilities were sanctioned and granted by the ICICI bank to respondent no.2- Shree Narmada Aluminum Industries Ltd along with erstwhile IDBI Bank Ltd and IFCI Ltd. between August 1985 and July 1986. The credit facilities were secured by equitable mortgage by way of first paripassu charge on the property situated at Survey No.95/1, Mouje Bholav, Taluka Bharuch, District Bharuch by way of title deeds with IDBI acting for itself and as an agent of ICICI and IFCI. The said deposit of title deeds was recorded by way of Memorandum of Entry dated 2nd September, 1986. Like-wise first pari passu charge in respect of movables were described in the Deeds of Hypothecation dated 1st Page 4 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 August, 1985 and 21st July, 1986.
5.2) Due to various defaults committed by respondent no.2 in the repayment of the said credit facilities, its account was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA).
5.3) In view of such defaults, ICICI bank filed Original Application No. 229/2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai which is pending as on date.
5.4) In the meanwhile, the ICICI bank assigned the debts due to it from respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner vide a Deed of Assignment dated 29th September, 2004 along with all underlying securities.
5.5) The respondent no.2 company had filed a Scheme of Compromise and/or Arrangement being Company Petition No.166/2006 under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 before this Court which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 16th May, 2008. The petitioner had not agreed to the said Scheme and challenged the same before this Court by preferring OJ Appeal No. 143/2008 which is pending adjudication before Division Bench of this Court.
5.6) The petitioner issued a demand notice Page 5 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 dated 12th November, 2010 under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act") in respect of secured assets calling upon respondent no.2 to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.31,62,52,966.04 as on 31st October, 2010 together with interest.
5.7) The petitioner received a letter dated 7th January, 2011 issued by the advocate of respondent no.2 raising objections under section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. After going through the submissions of the respondent no.2, the petitioner rejected the same and informed the same to respondent no.2 vide letter dated 17th January, 2011.
5.8) The petitioner thereafter took the possession of the secured assets on 13th December, 2014 and issued a possession notice dated 13th December, 2014 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (For short, the Rules, 2002") and the said possession notice was affixed at the site of the secured asset.
5.9) It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of affixing the said notice, Page 6 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 the petitioner noticed a board of Shree Narmada Architectural Systems Limited-
respondent no.3 herein which was displayed at the premises of the secured asset. Upon enquiry, the petitioner came to knew that the factory premises was under the possession of respondent no.3 and therefore, the possession notice dated 13th December, 2014 was not accepted as the same was addressed to respondent no.2.
5.10) The petitioner therefore, published the said possession notice in the local newspaper on 17th December, 2014.
5.11) The petitioner thereafter, filed application dated 5th January, 2015 before the respondent no.1-District Magistrate under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for seeking police assistance for taking the forcible possession of the secured asset.
5.12) Respondent no.1 addressed letter dated 3rd February, 2015 to the petitioner raising certain queries and requesting for the copy of panchnama of possession taken under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, details of the proceedings before the Tribunal, details regarding declaration of account of respondent no.2 as NPA and details of any amounts received by the petitioner Page 7 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 from respondent no.2.
5.13) The petitioner filed additional affidavit dated 24th March, 2015 and provided all the details sought for by respondent no.1.
5.14) The petitioner thereafter received no response from the respondent no.1 and therefore, the petitioner addressed letter dated 8th June, 2015 requesting the respondent-No.1 to take necessary steps at the earliest in respect of the application filed by the petitioner.
5.15) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was orally informed that there were certain clarification required in respect of the assignment of debt of respondent no.2 and the locus of the petitioner as the creditor of the respondent no.2. The petitioner therefore, addressed letter dated 22nd June, 2015 to the respondent no.1. The petitioner also sought a meeting with the said respondent-No.1 in which it was informed that the application of the petitioner was rejected and a signed order thereof would be issued soon.
5.16) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner received copy of the Page 8 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 impugned order dated 24th June, 2015 after the meeting held on 22nd June, 2015 whereby the respondent no.1 rejected the application of the petitioner on the sole ground that the loan was granted by ICICI bank and hence ICICI bank is the secured creditor and not the petitioner and hence the petitioner could not take measures under the SARFAESI Act.
5.17) Being aggrieved by the said impugned order of the respondent no.1, the petitioner has preferred the present petition with aforesaid prayers.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.1 has erred in law in not following the decision of the Supreme Court in case of ICICI Bank Limited v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd & Ors. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 1 inasmuch as the issue as to whether an assignee can proceed to take measures under the SARFAESI Act is no more res-integra as the said issue is decided by various Courts including this Court.
6.1) It was submitted that the petitioner is an assignee of the secured debt and therefore, the securities created in favour of the assignor automatically becomes the security of the assignee and in such Page 9 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 circumstances, the District Magistrate could not have dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the borrower
- Shree Narmada Aluminium Industries did not receive any loan from the petitioner - Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. but it had obtained the loan from ICICI bank and no property is mortgaged with the petitioner-bank.
6.2) It was submitted that the District Magistrate is not empowered to go into the legality of the aspect of the Deed of Assignment and therefore, the application could not have been rejected on the ground that respondent no.2 did not obtain loan from the petitioner-bank.
6.3) It was submitted that as far as section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 is concerned, no documents would be accepted for registration unless it is presented within four months from the date of execution.
6.4) It was submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the District Magistrate is not an adjudicating authority but is performing only a ministerial roll and therefore, respondent no.1 could not have gone into the issue of assignment of debt.
Page 10 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 6.5) Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in case of Bank of India v. Pankaj Dilipbhai Hemani & Ors reported in AIR 2007 (GUJ) 201.
6.6) It was submitted that respondent no.1 is required to comply with the provisions of section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by verifying the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner-bank as provided in proviso to section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which is inserted with effect from 15th January, 2013. The District Magistrate is therefore, not justified to reject the application on the grounds stated in the impugned order.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Pavan Godiawala for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the Deed of Assignment is not registered at all and hence the ICICI Bank cannot assign any security interest in immovable properties of respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner and the Deed of Assignment is hit by the provisions of sections 17, 23 and 25 of the Registration Act,1908 read with section 49 thereof.
7.1) It was further submitted that the said Deed of Assignment is required to be registered with the Sub-Registrar at Bharuch since the immovable property is situated at Bharuch. However, the Deed of Confirmation Page 11 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 dated 26th October, 2005 along with Deed of Assignment is presented to the office of Sub- Registrar, Andheri, Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra and therefore, it is also hit by provisions of section 28 of the Registration Act,1908 which requires a document to be presented for registration only in the office of the Sub-Registrar within whose territorial jurisdiction the whole or part of the property is situated.
7.2) It was further submitted that the Deed of Assignment is not duly stamped and is hit by the provisions of section 5 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 read with section 34 thereof. It was submitted that the Deed of Assignment is insufficiently stamped and therefore, provisions of section 34 of the Stamp Act would be attracted. It was submitted that the petitioner was not a creditor at all of the respondent no.2 and the petitioner has no dues or debt to recover from the respondent no.2.
7.3) Learned advocate Mr. Godiawala further submitted that the petitioner is not covered under the definition of a "secured creditor" under section 2(1)(zd) of the SARFAESI Act. It was further submitted that the Deed of Assignment has to be presented for registration within four months; however it has not been presented within the said Page 12 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 time frame. It was submitted that Deed of Confirmation is dated 26th October, 2005 much after the expiry of period of four months under section 23 of the Registration Act,1908. It was further submitted that the Sub-Registrar has expressly stated while registering the Deed of Confirmation that he is not registering the Deed of Assignment.
7.4) Learned advocate Mr. Godiawala further submitted that respondent no.2 had filed a Scheme of Compromise and/or Arrangement being Company Petition No.166/2006 under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 before this Court and this Court by judgment dated 16th May, 2008 allowed the said petition and sanctioned the Scheme of Compromise and/or Arrangement. It was submitted that though the petitioner opposed the said petition on various grounds including on the ground that it is the assignee of ICICI bank pursuant to the Deed of Assignment dated 29th September, 2004, this Court however while allowing the petition refused to accept the contentions of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner has preferred O.J. Appeal No. 143/2008 before the Division Bench of this Court which has been admitted by order dated 11th August, 2008, however no stay has been granted against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It was submitted that while the Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 petitioner has stated in the present petition that it has challenged the Scheme of Compromise and/or arrangement by way of filing OJ appeal, it has concealed the fact that Division Bench has refused to grant the prayer for stay of operation of the said Scheme.
7.5) Learned advocate Mr. Godiawala further submitted that the scheme is operative and binding on all creditors and shareholders and the company itself and the respondent company has already deposited the entire sum payable to ICICI bank before the Court and the petitioner has also withdrawn the said amount and therefore, there is no debt payable by the respondent company to ICICI bank or to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner being neither the original lender nor a deemed lender, provisions of SARFAESI Act do not apply to it. It was submitted that no security interest is created by the borrower in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is neither a securitization company nor a reconstruction company. It was further submitted that the petitioner though is a bank is not one in whose favour security interest is created by the borrower and therefore, is not covered under the definition of secured creditor.
Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 7.6) In support of his contentions, learned advocate Mr. Godiawala relied upon the following decisions:
i) Judgement dated 18th July, 2016 of Bombay High Court in case of Ajay Kumar M. Singh v. Basant Bhoruka
ii) Decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in case of Smt. G. Kadambari w/o. Kesuvulu v. District Registrar and others in Writ Petition No.4079/2004.
iii) Judgement of High Court of Lahore in case of Mohammad Yahya Ali Shah v. S. Sardar Ali Shah and others
iv) Decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in case of G. Krishna Reddy v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 4th December, 2004
v) Judgment of Supreme Court reported in case of ICICI Bank Limited v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd.
& Ors reported in (2010) 10 SCC page 1
vi) Judgment of this Court dated 20th
October, 2010 passed in Civil
Application No.14195/2010 in case of
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V. Balaram
Cements Limited
vii) Decision of Supreme Court in case of
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v.
Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd and others in Civil Appeal No. 6054/2015 dated 11th August, 2015.
Page 15 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is apparent that the respondents have made submissions on the merits with regard to raising the objection that the Deed of Assignment dated 29th September, 2004 is not registered at all. However, it is pertinent to note that District Magistrate is not empowered to adjudicate upon the issue of registration of Deed of Assignment while passing an order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Apex Court in case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 782 has held as under :
"18. Section 14 of the Act provides that the secured creditor can file an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction, the secured asset or other documents relating thereto are found for taking possession thereof. If any such request is made, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, is obliged to take possession of such asset or document and forward the same to the secured creditor. (See: United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. - (2010) 8 SCC
110). Therefore, it follows that a secured creditor may, in order to enforce his rights under Section 13(4), in particular Section 13(4)(a), may take recourse to Section 14 of the Act."Page 16 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022
C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022
9. Therefore I am not dealing in detail the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents with regard to the objection that the Deed of Assignment in favour of the petitioner-bank is not registered.
10. If the respondent is aggrieved by the Deed of Assignment executed by ICICI bank in favour of the petitioner-bank, the remedy lies under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to raise the objections against the action taken by the petitioner-bank under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act.
11. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act provides as under :
"Section 14"
"14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.--
(1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents Page 17 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 relating thereto may be situated or found to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him
(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and
(b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor:
{Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that
(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application;
(ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period;
(iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub-clause (ii) above;
(iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount;
(v) consequent upon such default in Page 18 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non-performing asset;
(vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the borrower;
(vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non-
acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower;
(viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act;
(ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder had been complied with:
Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for the Purpose of taking possession of Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022 C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 the secured assets [within a period of thirty days from the date of application]:
(Provided [also] that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reason 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.] Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated in the first proviso Shall not apply to proceeding pending before any District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act.] [(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,
(i) to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto, and
(ii) to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor] (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-
section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary.
Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022 (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate '[any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate] done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority."
12. This Court in case of IDBI Bank Limited v. Hytaisun Magnetics Limited and others reported in (2011) 2 GLR 1438 has considered the powers of the District Magistrate while deciding the application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as under :
"22. For the reasons aforesaid, the Dis- trict Magistrate, Mehsana having no ju- risdiction to call for the record or to adjudicate the matter, we hold that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Mehsana dated 21.9.2010 in MCC Case No. 1 of 2001 is illegal. We set aside the same. The case is remitted to the Dis- trict Magistrate, Mehsana to assist the petitioner - bank in taking possession of the secured assets and documents thereto. It must be made within a fort- night.
However, the findings on this case will not affect the case preferred by the re- spondent - borrowers before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad under Sec- tion 17 of the Securitization Act."
13. Thus the decisions relied upon on behalf of the respondent cannot be looked into by respondent no.1 while passing the order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Page 21 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022C/SCA/13562/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2022
14. In view of foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 24th June, 2015 passed by the respondent no.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh application for getting police assistance as per section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and respondent no.1-District Magistrate, Bharuch is directed to decide such application in accordance with the settled legal position by rendering the police assistance to the petitioner-bank in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Such order shall be passed within a period of 30 days as prescribed in sub-section(1) of section 14 of the SARFAESI Act from the date of receipt of such application to be filed by the petitioner.
15. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 22 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 12:04:50 IST 2022