L And T Finance Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7585 Bom

                                              1/3                         5-WP-9090-2022.doc




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          Digitally
          signed by
          PURTI
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PURTI     PRASAD
PRASAD    PARAB
PARAB     Date:
          2022.08.06
          13:53:43
          +0530               WRIT PETITION NO. 9090 OF 2022

L & T Finance Limited                                      ....Petitioner
              V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                          ...Respondents

                                    ----
Mr. Karl Shroff a/w Ms. Priyanka Fadia i/b Mr. Shashank Fadia for Petitioner.
Ms. Neha Bhide - AGP "B" Panel for State.
                                    ----

                                         CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
                                                 A.S. DOCTOR, JJ.

DATED : 3rd AUGUST 2022

P.C. :

1. Petitioner is impugning an order dated 7 th June 2022 passed by

Respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Pune. According to Mr. Shroff the

order goes totally contrary to settled law.

2. By the said order, Respondent No.2 has disposed the

Securitization Application of petitioner on the pretext that the Police

Commissioner, Economic and Cyber Crime Branch, Pune vide his order

dated 26th November 2021 has directed submission of proposal to Home

Department, Maharashtra regarding attachment of secured property as the

borrowers and others have defaulted to return the deposits received from

the depositors on maturity and against them C.R. No. 3/2021 has been filed

under Section 406, 420 and Section 34 at Swargate Police Station, Pune

City, under Sub Section (1) of Section 4, Section 5 and Section 8 of the Purti Parab 2/3 5-WP-9090-2022.doc

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial

Establishments) Act, 1999 (Mah. 16 of 2000) (the MPID Act). Respondent

No.2 in the impugned order has stated that therefore possession of the

secured property cannot be taken for the time being. Mr. Shroff submitted

that even in most recent judgment of this court in Civil Writ Petition No.

5055 of 2021 dated 19th July 2022 (yet to be reported), this court has held

that Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act) is only an

enabling provision which comes into play only after the defaulting borrower

has failed and/or neglected to discharge in full its liability to the secured

creditor and is limited to providing assistance to the secured creditor to

recover possession of secured asset against non-co-operative borrowers.

3. Ms. Bhide in fairness submitted that the law is quite clear on

this subject and courts have held time and again what is the scope of

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. We would therefore agree with Mr. Shroff

that Respondent No.2 has not only transgressed the jurisdiction vested to

him under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act but had infact acted contrary to

it. The jurisdiction vested under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is limited

only to assisting a secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets

and nothing more. Section 14 does not contemplate, much less provide for

any person to resist the taking of possession of the secured assets of the

authorities so mentioned in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The function

Purti Parab 3/3 5-WP-9090-2022.doc

of the relevant authority under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is purely

ministerial and restricted to ensuring that the secured creditor has complied

with the requirements as set out in Section 14 (1) (i) to (ix). Once the

authority is satisfied that the requirements of Section 14 have been met

and/or complied with, the authority has to proceed to take possession of the

secured asset.

4. In the circumstances, since the issue involved is very narrow

and a pure question of law, we hereby dispose the petition itself in terms of

prayer clause - (a) which reads as under :

(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, thereby directing the Respondent No.2 to restore the Securitisation Application dated 5 th May, 2022 being Secu/SR/1896/2022 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and direct the Respondent No.2 to pass necessary orders within 30 days thereafter, as per the mandate of the SARFAESI Act.

5. The Securitization Application No. SECU/SR/1896/2022 is

restored to file of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall dispose the

application within 30 days of receiving copy of this order.

6. Petition disposed.

(A.S. DOCTOR, J.)                                        (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)




Purti Parab