Chattisgarh High Court
Idbi Bank vs District Magistrate on 29 June, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 2779 of 2022
IDBI Bank, Office Address 104, R.B. Tower, Samta Colony, Raipur 492001
Through Authorized Officer, Branch Phone No.0771-6679101.
Through Authorised Officer -Arun Shobhaar, Aged About 47 Years, S/o Shri
Shobhakar Pradhan.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. District Magistrate, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. M/s Progressive Axim Limited (Director)
(i) Shri Sandeep Shrishrimal (Director)
(ii) Shri Mahendra Shrishrimal (Director)
Registered Officer -Shanti Sadan, Maidanpath, Opposite District- Cooperative
Bank, Chaubey Colony, Raipur 492001 Chhattisgarh.
Office Address- M/s Progressive Axim Limited, First Floor, Plot No. C- 39,
Sector 2, Jagrati Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001.
Unit 1 -M/s Progressive Axim Limited Plot No. 952 955, Sector D, Urla Industrial
Area, Village Sarona Raipur.
Unit 2 -M/s Progressive Axim Limited, 3 - 4 Bhanpuri Industrial, Seth Oil Mill
Compound Bhanpuri, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Shri Amit Shrishrimal (Director) S/o Padam Chand Jain, Partner M/s Neha and
Company, M- 6, Anupam Nagar, Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Kusumdevi Shrishrimal (Director) W/o Mahendra Shrishirmal Partner M/s
Arihant Farm and Company, Jaguna Villa, Madhupillai Chowk, Opposite Mehta
Medical, Shankar Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Smt. Leela Devi Shrishrimal (Surety) W/o Padam Chand Jain Partner M/s Neha
And Company M- 6, Anupam Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
6. Shri Sumit Shrishrimal (Surety) S/o Padam Chand Jain Partner M/s Neha and
Company, M- 6, Anupam Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advocate.
For State : Mr. P. Acharya, PL.
Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, Judge
Order on Board
29/06/2022
1. The limited relief that Petitioner-Bank seeks for 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") 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, Raipur on 29.11.2019. Thereafter, the matter came up for
hearing on 5.12.2019 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.1 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
Jamal/-
