Advance Syntex Limited vs Authorized Officer, Axis Bank ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2774 Guj

     C/SCA/5053/2023                              ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5053 of 2023
==========================================================
                       ADVANCE SYNTEX LIMITED
                                Versus
                 AUTHORIZED OFFICER, AXIS BANK LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AR GUPTA(1262) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS NEETA A PANDIT(5952) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

                            Date : 05/04/2023

                             ORAL ORDER

1. Mr.Lalit Patel, learned advocate states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent - bank and seeks permission to file vakalatnama. Permission is accordingly granted. The Registry is directed to accept the vakalatnama that may be filed by learned advocate Mr.Patel.

2. Mr.Lalit Patel, learned advocate for the respondent - bank submitted that in view of the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by this Court and, more particularly, tentative opinion expressed by this Court that the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate being without jurisdiction, the respondent - bank shall file a fresh application 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"), together with 9 pointers affidavit at the earliest.

3. Ms.Neeta Pandit, learned advocate for the petitioners states that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

C/SCA/5053/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023

the case of Manjudevi R. Somani vs. Union of India rendered in Special Civil Application No.10038 of 2013 and, more particularly, the fact that in absence of 9 pointers affidavit, the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate would be without jurisdiction and that, the order dated 13.01.2023 be quashed and set aside.

4. The said aspect is not disputed by Mr.Lalit Patel, learned advocate.

5. Hence, in view of the fact that the absence of 9 pointers affidavit, as required under the provisions of the Act of 2002 having not filed, so also, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manjudevi R. Somani (supra), the order dated 13.01.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. It will be open for the respondent - bank to file a fresh application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 after complying with the requirement of the provisions contained thereunder. If the fresh application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, after complying the requirements of law, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate will decide the same in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in no case, later than three weeks from the date of filing of such application.

6. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) Hitesh