Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(16/ 12 /2015) This petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, in which it is prayed that the proceedings before the District Magistrate and orders passed in said proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the "SARFAESI Act") be set aside. It is further prayed that auction notice dated 7.11.2015 and 16.11.2015 (Annexure P/8) be also set aside. A writ of mandamus is prayed for to set aside the entire action initiated by the Bank with further prayer for a direction to the Bank for not proceeding without adjudicating objection/representation of the petitioner filed under Section 13(3)(A) of the SARFAESI Act. Lastly, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to decide the objection of the petitioner dated 19.1.2015 (Annexure P/22).

4. Per Contra, Shri Sinhal, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has already filed Second Appeal No. 182/2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the said second appeal, the petitioner has assailed notice under section 13(2) and the action taken under section 13(4) of the Act. The petitioner has also taken grounds relating to violation of section 13(3) (A) of the Act, which is also taken in the present case. It is urged that the interim application of the petitioner is rejected by the Tribunal on 25.3.2015 (Annexure R/1/7). Shri Sinhal submits that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 25.3.2015 before appropriate forum. He has deliberately done it in order to save the money which is required to be deposited in preferring appeal against the rejection order dated 25.3.2015. Since the petitioner did not challenge this order in any proceeding, hence, it has attained finality. For the same set of grievance, this parallel petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. Shri Sinhal submits that the order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is also appealable under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Kanhaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 2 SCC 782, and recent judgment of Supreme Court in 2014 (1) MPLJ 306 (Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar). He also relied on a Single Bench judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 3732/2014 dated 1.9.2014. To elaborate, it is urged that the action under section 14 constitutes an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4). Thus, it would fall within the ambit of section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. He also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in (2010) 8 SCC 110 (United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others). By placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment in M/s VolocityLtd. vs. State Bank of India (Writ Appeal No. 296/2010) (Annexure R/1/4), it is urged that non-compliance of Section 13(3)(A) of the SARFAESI Act will not give any cause of action to file a writ petition. Lastly, he relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Onil Sadh vs. Federal Bank Ltd. and others (WP (C) 7344/2015, decided on 6.11.2015). On the strength of this judgment, it is urged that the petitioner has a statutory efficacious remedy to prefer appeal against the orders passed by District Magistrates Damoh and Shajapur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

13. No doubt, in Kanhaiyalal Lalchand and Standard Chartered Bank (supra), the Apex Court opined that in certain cases, the appeal would lie against orders/actions taken under section 13(2), 13(4) and 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, in aforesaid two judgments, the Apex Court has not specifically dealt with Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act. This section is specifically dealt with by Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra). In para 29, the Apex Court opined as under:-

"29. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act provides that no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate or any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate done in pursuance of Section 14 shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. The SARFAESI Act, therefore, attaches finality to the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate and this decision cannot be challenged before any court or any authority. But this Court has repeatedly held that statutory provisions attaching finality to the decision of an authority excluding the power of any other authority or Court to examine such a decision will not be a bar for the High Court or this Court to exercise jurisdiction vested by the Constitution because a statutory provision cannot take away a power vested by the Constitution. To quote, the observations of this Court in Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2012) 11 SCC 224]:

18. I have perused the record. It is seen that the Bank before both the District Magistrates (Damoh and Shajapur) have filed the affidavits in which they have furnished necessary information as per said proviso. The said affidavits are already placed on record. The petitioner has nowhere pleaded in his petition as to what is the infirmity in the application/affidavit filed by the Bank under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. A bald statement is made that the necessary informations as required in the proviso have not been furnished. The petitioner is unable to establish that said proviso is violated. If there was any such violation, it should have been pleaded with accuracy and precision. The petitioner has also not shown as to what prejudice is caused to him if any such violation has taken place. Thus, I am unable to hold that the Bank have failed to file proper affidavit in consonance with the provisions of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The orders of District Magistrates further show that despite giving ample opportunity to the petitioner, he did not cooperate and participate in the proceedings. Only when adverse orders are passed, he filed this petition after a considerable long time. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned orders of District Magistrate passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.