Gujarat High Court
Gruh Finance Limited Throu Authorised ... vs District Magistrate, Surat on 24 October, 2019
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/2156/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2156 of 2019
==========================================================
GRUH FINANCE LIMITED THROU AUTHORISED OFFICER, ANITA VIVEK
SRIVASTAVA
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SURAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
UNSERVED REFUSED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 24/10/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondent no. 1 & 2 and waives service of notice of rule. Respondents no. 3 & 4 have refused service.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayers read as under:
"7. b) This Honourable Court by pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and to comply the order dated 1st July 2015 passed by the Respondent No. 1 by handing over the possession of the secured asset to the Petitioner;
c) Pending the admission and final disposal of the petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to act in Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 26 00:46:13 IST 2019 C/SCA/2156/2019 ORDER accordance with law and complying with the order dated 1st July 2015 of the Respondent No. 1 by handing over the possession of the secured asset to the Petitioner;"
3. It is the case of the petitioner that it had rendered financial assistance to respondents no. 3 & 4 to the tune of Rs.11,50,000/- by creating mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds. Since the respondents no. 3 & 4 defaulted in their payments, the petitioner initiated action under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and on the failure of respondents no. 3 & 4 to comply with such notice, notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued. Symbolic possession of the property was taken on 28.11.2014. On an application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking over physical possession, the respondent no. 1 passed an order on 01.07.2015 to take over possession of the properties in question of respondents no. 3 & 4, but the respondents no. 1 & 2 are not taking over possession. It is averred in the petition that though in accordance with the order passed by respondent no. 1, respondent no. 2 along with various officers of the petitioner went to take over possession on 17.10.2015 but in absence of the respondent no. 3 possession of the secured assets were not taken. Despite several oral/written requests by the petitioner, respondents no. 1 and 2 were not enforcing their own order passed under Section 14 of the Act.
4. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, respondents no. 1 & 2 are directed to see that the order dated 01.07.2015 in accordance with the mandate of provisions of Section 14 of Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 26 00:46:13 IST 2019 C/SCA/2156/2019 ORDER the Act is enforced by taking suitable measures. This is of course subject to any order that may be passed. In the event of respondents no. 3 & 4 having challenged the order under Section 14 before the competent courts, respondents no. 1 & 2 shall act and take necessary action in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this Court. Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 26 00:46:13 IST 2019