Allahabad High Court
Indian Bank vs District Magistrate And 6 Others on 9 December, 2024
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:192620-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37538 of 2024 Petitioner :- Indian Bank Respondent :- District Magistrate And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.23of 2024
1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and Shri R.M. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.
2. This amendment application is allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner may carry out necessary amendment in the prayer clause during course of the day.
Re: Writ Petition
1. Present petition has been filed with following relief:-
"i. issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1st set to allow the application filed by the petitioner bank U/sec. 14 SARFAESI Act 2002 for taking actual physical possession over the mortgaged property i.e. all that piece and parcel of H. No. D 52/92-G Area 56.35 Sqft Mauza-Luxa, Tehsil & District-Varanasi.
ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Addl. D.M. (F/R) Varanasi in Case No.2659/2024 Authorized Officer, Indian Bank Branch Office Amra Varanasi vs. M/s Sri Jalaram Papers through it's proprietor filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002"
2. By drawing attention to impugned order dated 07.09.2024, particularly second last para of the impugned order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was typing mistake in describing the area of the property in question being House No.D-52/92-G, Mauza Luxa, Tehsil & District Varanasi, which has been incorrectly mentioned as 56.35 "square meters" whereas the correct area is 56.35 "square feet". This mistake of describing the area is nothing but typing/clerical in nature whereas the correct area is reflected from the sale deed itself. For such trivial clerical mistake there is no justification to reject the application of the petitioner filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In support of this argument learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L & T Housing Finance Limited vs. Trishul Developers and Another reported in 2020 (10) SCC 659 wherein it was held that in view of the trivial and technical mistake the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act should not be negated and action of setting aside the SARFAESI proceeding was found to be unsustainable.
3. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
4. Accordingly, the order impugned herein dated 07.09.2024 passed under Section 14 SARFAESI Act is hereby quashed.
5. The writ petition is allowed.
6. The matter is remitted to the Authority concern for passing fresh orders expeditiously after permitting the petitioner-bank to make necessary correction in the prayer clause.
Order Date :- 9.12.2024 Nitendra