Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Smt.Ayishumma vs T.Hassan on 29 June, 2009

The South Indian Bank Ltd vs Union Of India on 25 June, 2010

This Court had further occasion to consider the same and by virtue of the decision reported in Ayishumma v. Hassan (2009(3) KLT 399), it is no more open to be subjected to challenge under any circumstances. Since the question of law has been declared by this Court, it was no more open to the learned Magistrate to have pursued such a course as reflected in Ext.R3, which cannot but be deprecated.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - P R Menon - Full Document

F.Celestine Mary vs M/S. State Bank Of Travancore on 11 November, 2011

In Ayishumma vs. Hassan, reported in 2009 (2) D.R.T.C 466 (Ker), the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court has held that the power of the Magistrate acting under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act is not adjudication of the Court below, as the court has no jurisdiction to decide claim regarding nature of property under dispute and the power vested with the Magistrate is for a limited jurisdiction to provide assistance to take over the physical possession of the secured property.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

M/S. Sri Chakarapani Dall Mill, vs The Honble Chief Judicial Magistrate ... on 7 September, 2020

Interpreting the unamended provision, in Ayishumma v. Hassan [2009 (3) KLT 399] and South Indian Bank Limited v. Union of India [2010 (4) KLT 657], this court held further that the only aspect to be seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while exercising power under section 14 of the Act, is whether the property in respect of which assistance is sought is a secured asset. It is thereafter, the provision has been amended and the provisos to sub-section (1) and sub-section (1A) were introduced. The amendments have not made any change to the scheme of the provision. On the other hand, it is seen that the amendments were intended to remove the ambiguity in the unamended provision as regards the jurisdiction of the competent authority exercising power under Section 14 of the Act. In the light of the amendments, before rendering assistance to the secured creditor, it is obligatory for the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising power under section 14 of the Act to satisfy that the secured creditor has made a declaration in the form of an affidavit as regards matters specifically mentioned in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14. In other words, after the amendments, if the secured 4 2018 (3) KHC 670 RK, J & JUD, J 13 WP Nos.20778 & 21300/2019 creditor does not file an affidavit declaring all the facts required to be declared in terms of the first proviso, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not obliged to render assistance to them. The correctness or otherwise of the declaration, going by the scheme of the provision, is not a matter at all for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to adjudicate. As taking possession of the secured asset through the process under section 14 of the Act is also one of the measures contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act, the correctness, if any, of the declaration made by the secured creditor for the purpose of availing assistance under Section 14 of the Act is a matter for the Debts Recovery Tribunal exercising power under Section 17 of the Act to adjudicate upon, if raised.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J U Devi - Full Document

M/S. Sri Chakrapani Dail Mill ... vs The Honble Chief Judicial Magistrate ... on 7 September, 2020

Interpreting the unamended provision, in Ayishumma v. Hassan [2009 (3) KLT 399] and South Indian Bank Limited v. Union of India [2010 (4) KLT 657], this court held further that the only aspect to be seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while exercising power under section 14 of the Act, is whether the property in respect of which assistance is sought is a secured asset. It is thereafter, the provision has been amended and the provisos to sub-section (1) and sub-section (1A) were introduced. The amendments have not made any change to the scheme of the provision. On the other hand, it is seen that the amendments were intended to remove the ambiguity in the unamended provision as regards the jurisdiction of the competent authority exercising power under Section 14 of the Act. In the light of the amendments, before rendering assistance to the secured creditor, it is obligatory for the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising power under section 14 of the Act to satisfy that the secured creditor has made a declaration in the form of an affidavit as regards matters specifically mentioned in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14. In other words, after the amendments, if the secured 4 2018 (3) KHC 670 RK, J & JUD, J 13 WP Nos.20778 & 21300/2019 creditor does not file an affidavit declaring all the facts required to be declared in terms of the first proviso, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not obliged to render assistance to them. The correctness or otherwise of the declaration, going by the scheme of the provision, is not a matter at all for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to adjudicate. As taking possession of the secured asset through the process under section 14 of the Act is also one of the measures contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act, the correctness, if any, of the declaration made by the secured creditor for the purpose of availing assistance under Section 14 of the Act is a matter for the Debts Recovery Tribunal exercising power under Section 17 of the Act to adjudicate upon, if raised.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J U Devi - Full Document

Jampani Krishna Babu vs Canara Bank, on 4 December, 2020

Interpreting the unamended provision, in Ayishumma v. Hassan [2009 (3) KLT 399] and South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Union of India [2010 (4) KLT 657], this court held further that the only aspect to be seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while exercising power under section 14 of the Act, is whether the property in respect of which assistance is sought is a secured asset. It is thereafter, the provision has been amended and the provisos to sub-section (1) and sub- section (1A) were introduced. The amendments have not made any change to the scheme of the provision. On the other hand, it is seen that the amendments were intended to 1 2018 (3) KHC 670 9 remove the ambiguity in the unamended provision as regards the jurisdiction of the competent authority exercising power under Section 14 of the Act. In the light of the amendments, before rendering assistance to the secured creditor, it is obligatory for the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising power under section 14 of the Act to satisfy that the secured creditor has made a declaration in the form of an affidavit as regards matters specifically mentioned in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14. In other words, after the amendments, if the secured creditor does not file an affidavit declaring all the facts required to be declared in terms of the first proviso, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not obliged to render assistance to them. The correctness or otherwise of the declaration, going by the scheme of the provision, is not a matter at all for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to adjudicate. As taking possession of the secured asset through the process under section 14 of the Act is also one of the measures contemplated under sub- section (4) of section 13 of the Act, the correctness, if any, of the declaration made by the secured creditor for the purpose of availing assistance under Section 14 of the Act is a matter for the Debts Recovery Tribunal exercising power under Section 17 of the Act to adjudicate upon, if raised.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - C P Kumar - Full Document

T.Kalesan vs M/S Canara Bank on 5 July, 2011

The petitioner is challenging orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, whereby the petitioner's application for impleading in the proceedings has been rejected on the ground that the property in question is a security asset charged in favour of the 1st respondent bank. The petitioner's contention is that for deciding the question as to whether it is a security asset or not, the petitioner should have been impleaded and the petitioner's contention ought to have been heard. The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Ayishumma v. Hassan [2009(3) KLT 399] on the question as to whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to decide such questions. According to him, the Magistrate is bound to decide the question as to whether the property is a secured asset or not, after hearing the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the property in question W.P.(C)No.16716/11 2 was never mortgaged to the 1st respondent bank. But, it was mortgaged to the State Bank of Travancore,which liability had been discharged.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Jagan - Full Document
1