Madhya Pradesh High Court
Iifl Home Finance Limited Through Tis ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1142
1 WP-29323-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 29323 of 2024
IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED THROUGH TIS AUTHORISED
OFFICER BALVEER YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Sharma- learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Khedkari- learned AAG-Senior counsel alongwith Shri Rishabh Singh
Chauhan- learned counsel for respondents-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak Heard with consent of both the parties.
The present petition is preferred by petitioner being secured creditor taking exception to the order dated 21/08/2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Vidisha (M.P.) whereby application preferred by petitioner under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for brevity, 'the SARFAESI Act 2002' stands rejected on the ground of non compliance of mandatory provision of 60 days as provided in Section 13 (2)(3) of the SARFAESI Act 2002.
It is submission of learned counsel for petitioner that application was filed after issuance of notice to the borrower and that too after 60 days.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 22-Jan-25 10:38:31 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1142 2 WP-29323-2024 Said fact has not been appreciated by the ADM in correct perspective. Earlier registered AD notice was sent on 16/01/2024 but it returned back on 29/01/2024 as borrower was not present at the time of service. Thereafter, notice served through publication in daily newspaper Free Press (English Edition) and Navbharat (Bhopal Edition) which were widely circulated in District Vidisha. Therefore, service of notice through publication also carried out. However, said aspect has been ignored by the ADM and caused illegality and arbitrariness.
Learned counsel for respondents-State opposed the prayer and submits that since mandatory provision has not been complied with, therefore, impugned order has been passed.
Heard.
This is a case where petitioner as secured creditor intends to proceed against borrower/defaulter purportedly under Section 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002. From discussion and documents annexed with petition as Annexure P-4 collectively which are publication notice and service of summons by affixing that publication over the premises of borrower, it appears that compliance of Section 13(2)(3) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 was carried out. Even otherwise, registered AD notice carries implication of service as per Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897. Therefore, service was apparently effected over the borrower.
From the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the ADM caused illegality in not appreciating this fact and passed impugned order thus, to give effective implementation of SARFAESI Act Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 22-Jan-25 10:38:31 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1142 3 WP-29323-2024 2002, letter and spirit of provision are to be construed in correct earnest. ADM, District Vidisha did not appreciate the said aspect in correct perspective.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 21/08/2024 is hereby set-aside and matter is remanded back to the ADM, District Vidisha for appreciating the factual details in correct perspective and proceeding in according with law.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 22-Jan-25
10:38:31 AM