State Bank Of India Thru. Chief Manager ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 38428 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Bank Of India Thru. Chief Manager ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 21 November, 2024

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77004-DB
 
Court No. - 2
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9847 of 2024
 
Petitioner :- State Bank Of India Thru. Chief Manager Shri Amit Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 8 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Saxena
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1. Heard.

2. The application of the petitioner- Bank under Section 14 of the Secruritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act, 2002) has remained pending since 12.10.2023.

3. Learned Standing Counsel has instruction from the ADM, Administration, Unnao to the effect that it is the petitioner's counsel, who has not been appearing since 5.8.2024, which has resulted in the pendency. Yet again a case where it appears that the officer, who is to act under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is absolutely unaware of the scope of such proceedings and the manner in which they are to be conducted. We have already pronounced our judgments on 25.10.2024 in Writ-C No. 8867 of 2024 as also on 14.11.2024 in Writ -C No. 9723 of 2024 wherein we have elucidated the law on the subject. Proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are not to be conducted as a suit.

4.The Officer is directed to conclude the proceedings at the earliest keeping in mind the law mentioned hereinabove. If nothing happens and if they are not concluded within the next two months in terms of the aforesaid decisions, it shall be open for the petitioner to approach the Court again and if this happens, the consequences may be severe, because we are being flooded with such petitions unnecessarily only on account of a misconception as to the scope of such proceedings at the level of the officers concerned, unless of-course there is a legal impediment in doing so in which case it shall be informed to the petitioner in writing.

5. The writ petition is disposed of with these observations.

[Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 21.11.2024

Anuj Singh