Bank Of Baroda (Then Dena Bank), ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Additional ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8494 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:12480-DB
                                                                           48-wp 1812-23.odt
                                                        1/4




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1812                  OF 2023

                Bank of Baroda, (then Dena Bank) A
                Nationalised Bank and a Body Corporate
                constituted under the Banking Companies
                (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking)Act
                V of 1970 having its Head Office at Mandvi,
                Baroda in State of Gujrath and amongst other
                the Bank is having one of the Branch known as
                Regional Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,
                Nagpur acting through its Authorised Officer/
                Chief Manager, Mr.Anil Kumar Jha s/o
                Nandkishor Jha.
                                                                           Petitioner
                                      -Versus-

                State of Maharashtra through Additional                      Respondent
                District Magistrate, Collectorate Premises, Civil
                Lines,Nagpur.
               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Mr. S.N.Fuladi,, counsel for the petitioner.
                             Mr.A.A.Madiwale, AGP for the respondent.
               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND
                                                         VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is

Kavita.

48-wp 1812-23.odt

heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties.

3. The petitioner-Secured Creditor is aggrieved by the order

passed by the Additional Magistrate in proceedings under Section

14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(hereinafter

referred to as the 'Act of 2002'). The application preferred by the

petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 has been rejected

by the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 on the ground that the

properties mentioned have been attached in proceedings under the

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner that in the list of mortgaged properties that has been

indicated in the application filed under Section 14, properties at

Sr.Nos.1 and 3 have been attached under the provisions of

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The property No.2

has not been attached. It is further submitted that besides these

properties, there is one more property, which has not been

attached and which has not been referred to in the list of

Kavita.

48-wp 1812-23.odt

mortgaged properties. It is therefore submitted that by amending

the proceedings vide under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 that

property can also be added in the list of properties. It is therefore

prayed that the application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002

be directed to be reconsidered by the Additional Magistrate.

5. Reply has been filed by the respondent opposing the

prayer. It has been stated there in that request was made for steps

to be taken with regard to three properties. Details of the

properties attached were not placed before the Additional

Magistrate. The rejection of the said application on the ground

that the properties had been attached therefore, did not call for any

interference.

6. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that except for

stating that all properties have been attached under the provisions

of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 nothing

further has been stated. Since, it is the case of the petitioner that

only properties at serial Nos.1 and 3 in the list of mortgaged

properties has been attached, coupled with the fact that the

petitioner seeks to add one more property, in the said list, we are

Kavita.

48-wp 1812-23.odt

inclined to direct the respondent to reconsider petitioner's

application under section 14 of the Act of 2002.

7. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-

Order dated 08.03.2018 passed under Section 14 of the Act

of 2002 is set aside. The application filed under Section 14 of the

Act of 2002 is restored for fresh consideration in accordance with

law. It is open for the petitioner to make an application for

addition of another property to the list of the properties. The

Additional Magistrate shall consider such request in accordance

with law and pass appropriate orders. It is open for the petitioner

to place all relevant material before the Additional Magistrate, who

shall consider the same and pass fresh order.

8. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

                                   (VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J)                 (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J)




Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/08/2023 18:41:43     Kavita.