L And T Finance Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3733 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                            NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                     WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2514 OF 2022

        L & T Finance Limited Through Authorized Officer, R/o Branch
        Office At L & T Finance Ltd., 1st Floor, Simran Towers, Opposite To
        LIC Building, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                  ---- Petitioner
                                     Versus
     1. State   Of    Chhattisgarh   Through     District   Magistrate,   Raipur,
       Chhattisgarh

     2. Shri Yatish Kumar Bafna S/o Shri Sameer Mal Bafna, Aged About
       40 Years, R/o House No. - 00, Kapis Vihar, Ward No. 46, Amlidih,
       Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     3. Smt. Sonali Bafna W/o Shri Yatish Kumar Bafna, Aged About 31
       Years, R/o House No. -00, Kapis Vihar, Ward No. 46, Amlidih,
       Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

___________________________________________________________

     For Petitioner           : Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate.
     For Respondents/State    : Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate.

___________________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [14/06/2022]

1. The limited relief that Petitioner-company seeks in the present Writ

Petition is for a direction to Respondent No.1 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").

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

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

Magistrate, Raipur in January, 2022. Thereafter, the matter came up for

hearing on 7.1.2022 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-company 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-

Company 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 Company 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.1 to ensure

that the Application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 filed by the

Petitioner, 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)
Khatai                                                                 Judge