Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Smt.Ayishumma vs T.Hassan on 29 June, 2009
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.
D. Vinod Shivappa vs Nanda Belliappa on 25 May, 2006
5. In connection with the pleadings and prayers raised in
the Writ Petition, the learned Counsel for the Bank also submits
that the notice was initially sent by 'registered post', to both the
respondents and the same was accepted by the second
respondent (wife) as revealed from the endorsement on the
postal acknowledgement card returned, while the notice to the
third respondent/guarantor (husband) was returned unclaimed.
The learned Counsel submits that this by itself causing the postal
article returned unclaimed is liable to be treated as proper
service, despite which, the authorised officer of the Bank has
served a copy of the said notice 'personally' to the said
respondent against proper receipt and in the said circumstances,
no observation could have been made by the learned C.J.M to
W.P.(C) No. 14971 OF 2010
5
the effect that there was no proper service to have declined
interference in Ext.P5 petition. The learned Counsel also placed
reliance on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Vinod
Shivappa vs. Nanda Belliappa (2006 (3) KLT 94 (SC)] and
Alavi Haji vs. Muhammed (2007(3) KLT 77 (SC)], and also
the decisions rendered by this Court in Ayishumma v. Hassan
2009 (3) KLT 399 .
Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Muhammed Ashraf vs Union Of India on 13 August, 2008
9. Yet another aspect to be noted is about the scope of
jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to have rejected the
application under Section 14 of the Act, with reference to the
course and events as mentioned above. In fact, the role of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate, as the case
may be, as envisaged under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is
only with a limited jurisdiction, to see whether the property is a
'secured asset' or not. It is only with regard to the right of the
party/secured creditor to take physical possession of the
property, over which security interest has been created. The
secured creditor is at liberty to take possession of the property
even without intervention of the Magistrate, who is only to make
W.P.(C) No. 14971 OF 2010
10
necessary assistance, if so necessitated. The wordings under
Section 14 of the Act are very much significant and do not
require no other condition to be satisfied, except the two
parameters specified therein and once the Magistrate finds that
the above conditions are satisfied, the Magistrate is bound to
extend the necessary assistance called for. The scope of
jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act has
already been explained by this Court in the decision rendered by
a Division Bench of this Court reported in Muhammed Ashraf
v. Union of India (2008 (4) KLT 1).
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
5. In connection with the pleadings and prayers raised in
the Writ Petition, the learned Counsel for the Bank also submits
that the notice was initially sent by 'registered post', to both the
respondents and the same was accepted by the second
respondent (wife) as revealed from the endorsement on the
postal acknowledgement card returned, while the notice to the
third respondent/guarantor (husband) was returned unclaimed.
The learned Counsel submits that this by itself causing the postal
article returned unclaimed is liable to be treated as proper
service, despite which, the authorised officer of the Bank has
served a copy of the said notice 'personally' to the said
respondent against proper receipt and in the said circumstances,
no observation could have been made by the learned C.J.M to
W.P.(C) No. 14971 OF 2010
5
the effect that there was no proper service to have declined
interference in Ext.P5 petition. The learned Counsel also placed
reliance on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Vinod
Shivappa vs. Nanda Belliappa (2006 (3) KLT 94 (SC)] and
Alavi Haji vs. Muhammed (2007(3) KLT 77 (SC)], and also
the decisions rendered by this Court in Ayishumma v. Hassan
2009 (3) KLT 399 .
1