Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram Housing Finance Ltd. vs Smt. Aliya Shaikh on 10 November, 2020
Author: S.C.Sharma
Bench: S.C.Sharma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
W.P. No.6631/2020 (-1-)
W.P. No.6631/2020
Shriram Housing Finance Ltd.
Vs.
Smt. Aliya Shaikh and others
Indore, dated: 10.11.2020.
Parties through their counsel.
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present
petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2019
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore.
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is
a financial institution within the meaning of Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 and has submitted an application
under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has returned the
application on the ground that he is not having jurisdiction in
the matter.
Notices were issued and in spite of service of notice,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not present.
Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi and another (Civil Appeal No(S).6295/2015) dated 23.09.2019. The Hon'ble Supreme HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.6631/2020 (-2-) Court in the aforesaid case in paragraph Nos.46 to 48 has held as under:-
"46. Applying the principle underlying this decision, it must follow that substitution of functionaries (CMM as CJM) qua the administrative and executive or so to say non- judicial functions discharged by them in light of the provisions of Cr.P.C., would not be inconsistent with Section 14 of the 2002 Act; nay, it would be a permissible approach in the matter of interpretation thereof and would further the legislative intent having regard to the subject and object of the enactment. That would be a meaningful, purposive and contextual construction of Section 14 of the 2002 Act, to include CJM as being competent to assist the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset.
47. Having said this, we need not to dilate on other decisions pressed into service regarding the approach to be adopted in the matter of interpretation of statutes.
48. To sum up, we hold that the CJM is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the 2002 Act. We accordingly, uphold and approve the view taken by the High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh and reverse the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand in that regard. Resultantly, it is unnecessary to dilate on the argument of prospective overruling pressed into service by the secured creditors (Banks). "
In light of the aforesaid, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was certainly having jurisdiction in the matter and he could HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.6631/2020 (-3-) not have returned the application preferred under Section 14 of the Act, 2002. Resultantly, the order dated 20.12.2019 is hereby set aside. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to proceed ahead in accordance with law.
Petitioner will appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19.11.2020. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall proceed ahead in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, present petition stands allowed.
(S.C. Sharma) (Shailendra Shukla)
Judge Judge
N.R.
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR
RAIPURIA
Date: 2020.11.10
16:43:25 +05'30'