Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This case has a long and chequered history. The petitioner, a notified financial institution under Section 2(i)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act, sanctioned a short term loan facility of Rs.50 crores in favour of DCHL by sanction letter dated 22.06.2010. Thereafter, they accorded sanction for a working capital demand loan facility of Rs.50 crores which was availed by DCHL, and an equitable mortgage was created by them, in favour of the petitioner, by deposit of title deeds over an extent of 9892.6 sq. yards of land in Survey No.186 situated at Kondapur village along with the buildings located thereupon. DCHL defaulted in repayment of the loan, which resulted in the petitioner classifying their account as a non-performing asset (NPA). A notice dated 17.08.2012 was issued by the petitioner to DCHL recalling the credit facility, and calling upon them to clear the outstanding amounts due and payable under the credit facilities. The petitioner issued notice dated 25.10.2012, under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, to DCHL asking them to pay the petitioner the amounts due as on 15.08.2012 along with additional/penal interest. By way of the said notice, DCHL was informed that they were legally bound, under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, not to transfer the mortgaged properties by way of sale or otherwise without the prior written consent of the petitioner. As DCHL, despite receipt of the Section 13(2) notice, failed to repay the amounts due, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, and informed DCHL that they would take possession of the property on 07.01.2013 at 10.00 A.M. The petitioner claims that some persons, on behalf of DCHL, prevented the authorised officer from entering the property, and they took symbolic possession by affixing the possession notice dated 07.01.2013 as contemplated in Appendix-IV of the SARFAESI Act. A copy of the possession notice was also published in the Times of India and Sakshi daily newspapers on 09.01.2013.

DCHL filed W.P.No.5286 of 2014 challenging the vires of Section 2(1)(o) of the SARFAESI Act. They sought a declaration from this Court that the action of the petitioner-bank, in declaring their account as N.P.A, was contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 2(1)(o) of the SARFAESI Act; and the action of the petitioner-bank, in taking action against DCHL under the SARFAESI Act, was arbitrary and illegal. A Division Bench of this Court, by its order in WPMP No.6563 of 2014 in W.P.No.5286 of 2014 dated 03.03.2014, held that DCHL had failed to establish a prima-facie case, and the balance of convenience was also not in their favour. The Division Bench was not inclined to grant any interim order as it appeared to them that the Writ Petition was filed with a view to evade repayment of the loan taken by DCHL. The Division Bench further observed that their order should not nullify another judicial order passed by the DRT. While admitting W.P.No.5286 of 2014 the Division Bench, by its order dated 03.03.2014, dismissed WPMP No.6563 of 2014.

It is only if the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had passed an order merely under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act and, if the said order had not been complied with, could his jurisdiction, under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act, have been invoked. By his order, in Crl.M.P. No.123 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad directed the advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property and hand it over to the petitioner; permitted the advocate commissioner, if required, to take necessary assistance from the concerned police officers after putting them on notice; and, if further required, also to break open the locks of the premises. The order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in Crl.M.P.No.123 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013, is an order passed both under Section 14(1) and (2) of the SARFAESI Act. As they have already exhausted their remedy under clauses (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner cannot again be relegated to invoke the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

The facts, in the present case, justify interference by this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is neither any dispute with regards title or possession, nor is it purely a civil dispute between two private parties which necessitates adjudication by a competent Civil Court. It is not in dispute that the subject property was mortgaged by DCHL in favour of the petitioner, or that the petitioner invoked Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the subject property and to put it to sale. It is only because their attempt to take possession met with resistance from DCHL that the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, seeking assistance in taking possession of the subject property. The entire litigation thereafter, till the present Writ Petitions were filed before this Court, was only because the petitioner was prevented from taking absolute and exclusive control of the subject premises despite the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, dated 26.03.2013 and the order of the Division bench of this Court dated 11.11.2013.