Punjab National Bank vs M/S A.B. Fasteners
2022 Latest Caselaw 3722 Chatt

                                            -1-

                                                                                 NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                        Writ Petition (C) No. 2412 of 2022
   1. Punjab National Bank A Body Corporate Constituted Under The Banking
      Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings), Act 1970 Having
      Its Head Office At Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075
      Through Its Authorized Officer And Chief Manager Sadar Branch Bilaspur
      (C.G.)
                                                                     ---Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
   1. M/s A.B. Fasteners Proprietor- Vishwajeet Bhowmick, R/o R- 7/56, Rama
      Valley Raipur Road Bilaspur (C.G.) A Proprietorship Having Its Registered
      Office At Plot No. B-25, Sector A. Industrial Area Sirgitti, Block Bilha
      District Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001
   2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector (District Magistrate) Collectrate
      Building, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001
   3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Finance, Department Of
      Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                    ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

14.06.2022

1. The limited relief that Petitioner-Bank seeks for in the present Writ Petition

is for a direction to Respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision on the

Application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 (in short,

"the Act of 2002") at the earliest.

2. Learned Counsel for Petitioner-Bank submits that they have moved an

Application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the District

Magistrate, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing on

10.01.2020 before the District Magistrate who has issued Notice to the

Borrower and since then the matter is pending consideration before the

District Magistrate.

3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner-Bank further submits that under the Act of

2002, the proceeding under Section 14 has to be closed within an outer

limit of sixty days. Further that, Section 14 of the said Act does not require

issuance of Notice to the Borrower as such, as the Bank already has

initiated appropriate proceeding under Section 13 and it is only for the

purpose of taking possession that the Application under Section 14 has

been filed before the District Magistrate who in turn is only to be convinced

in terms of the provision as is otherwise stipulated under the Proviso to

Section 14(1) of the Act of 2002. Subject to Petitioner-Bank meeting all the

requisite conditions as stipulated under the Proviso to Section 14(1), the

District Magistrate need not delve into the matter any further and has to

pass an order ordering for possession of the property mortgaged with the

Bank within an outer limit of sixty days.

4. This Court also in the past in W.P.(C) No.222/2020 (DCB Bank Limited

Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 5.2.2020, has in very categorical

terms held that in a proceeding under Section 14, notice to Borrower need

not be issued or notice to Borrower under Section 14 is not required. What

is required as is stipulated in the Proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act of

2002. The said view of this Court was on the basis of the Judgment of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Aditya Birla Finance

Limited Vs. Shri Carnet Elias Fernandes Vermalayam decided on

13.7.2018 in W.A. No.784/2018 as also in yet another Judgment of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of DCB Bank Limited Vs. State

of M.P. & Others, decided on 10.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.22260/2018

which was disposed of in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court rendered in the case of Standard Chartered Bank, etc. Vs. V.

Noble Kumar & Other, etc. [2013 (9) SCC 62].

5. Given the aforesaid legal position as it stands, the present Writ Petition

also is being disposed of directing the Respondent No.2 to ensure that the

Application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 filed by the Petitioner, and

which is pending since 2019, be considered and decided on its own

merits, at the earliest, within an outer limit of sixty days from the date of

receipt of copy of this Order.

6. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder