Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 20 August, 2007
11. Even the petitioners, in such circumstances, do not deserve a
hearing on merits keeping in view the law laid by the Apex Court down in
Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, wherein it
has been held as under:-
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
12. The said view was, thereafter, followed in Dalip Singh Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 wherein also the writ
petitioner had not stated the correct facts before the High Court and had the
benefit of the surplus land which was to go to the landless poor persons. It
was, accordingly, held that when the case belongs to category of persons who
not only attempt, but have succeeded in polluting the course of justice and
mislead the Court and no case for interference would be made out. It was also
held that once a misleading statement was put forward before the High Court
and the appellant had succeeded in persuading the Court to pass an order
which had resulted in frustrating the efforts made by the concerned authority
regarding the distribution of the surplus land, the case was liable to be
dismissed on that ground itself. We are forced to keep off our hands for such
kind of litigation by litigants who are polluting the course of justice and
blocking valuable judicial time.
Allahabad Bank vs District Magistrate, Mini Secretariat ... on 17 February, 2020
5. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that
the order passed under Section 14 of the Act by the District Magistrate on
21.04.2022 (Annexure P-9) though sketchy and not as per the terms of the
judgment of the Division Bench in Allahabad Bank's case (supra), was only a
consequential order which was passed implementing the order under Section
13(4) of the Act.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd. vs Naveen Mathew Philip on 17 April, 2023
"8.1 However, for taking physical possession of
the secured assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the
SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor is obliged to
approach the CMM/DM by way of a written application
requesting for taking possession of the secured assets
4 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 10-05-2023 22:23:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:064990-DB
CWP-12171-2022 (O & M) 5 2023:PHHC:064990-DB
and documents relating thereto and for being forwarded
to it (secured creditor) for further action. The statutory
obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM is to
immediately move into action after receipt of a written
application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act
from the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as
such an application is received, the CMM/DM is
expected to pass an order after verification of
compliance of all formalities by the secured creditor
referred to in the proviso in Section 14(1) of the
SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that regard,
to take possession of the secured assets and documents
relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured
creditor at the earliest opportunity. As mandated
by Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM has
to act within the stipulated time limit and pass a suitable
order for the purpose of taking possession of the secured
assets within a period of 30 days from the date of
application which can be extended for such further
period but not exceeding in the aggregate, sixty days.
Thus, the powers exercised by the CMM/DM is a
ministerial act. He cannot brook delay. Time is of the
essence. This is the spirit of the special enactment. As
observed and held by this Court in the case of NKGSB
Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra), the step taken by the
CMM/DM while taking possession of the secured assets
and documents relating thereto is a ministerial step. It
could be taken by the CMM/DM himself/herself or
through any officer subordinate to him/her, including
the advocate commissioner who is considered as an
officer of his/her court. Section 14 does not oblige the
CMM/DM to go personally and take possession of the
secured assets and documents relating thereto. Thus, we
reiterate that the step to be taken by the CMM/DM
5 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 10-05-2023 22:23:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:064990-DB
CWP-12171-2022 (O & M) 6 2023:PHHC:064990-DB
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is a ministerial
step. While disposing of the application under Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, no element of quasijudicial
function or application of mind would require. The
Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide the correctness
of the information given in the application and nothing
more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an
adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrower
against the secured creditor taking possession of
secured assets."
M/S R.D. Jain And Co. vs Capital First Ltd on 27 July, 2022
The Apex Court in Balkrishna Rama Tarle (D) through
L.Rs. and another vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2022 AIR (SC)
4756 also, while placing reliance upon the judgment in M/s. R.D. Jain and
Co. vs. Capital First Ltd., AIR 2022 (SC) 4820 decided on 27.07.2022, held
that there is no element of quasi judicial function or application of mind by
the Magistrate who is just to adjudicate and decide the correctness of the
information given in the application and nothing more. It resultantly upheld
the order of the Division Bench wherein the claim for tenancy was being
entertained by the District Magistrate and he had declined to assist the
secured creditor and taking possession of the secured assets. The High Court
had set aside the said order which was upheld by the Apex Court and the
directions which have been issued to proceed further in the application under
Section 14 of the Act. The relevant part reads as under:-
1