Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Steel Authority Of India ... vs Punjab National Bank on 23 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.3040 of 2021
-----
M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro
Steel Plant, Bokaro. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Punjab National Bank, through its Chief Manager, Bokaro Steel City
Branch, Sector-IV, Bokaro.
2. M/s. Maa Pyari Steel Private Limited, through Lessee- Mr. Manoj
Kumar Singh.
3. M/s. Binayak Kumar, through its Authorized Signatory, Sri Binayak
Kumar.
4. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indraji Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate
For the Bank : Mr. Dr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
-----
Order No.02 Date: 23.09.2021
This case is taken up through video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order
dated 11th March, 2020 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by
the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro-
respondent no.4 in SARFAESI Case no.55 of 2018-19 with further
prayer that the said respondent may be directed to hand over the
possession of the land, appertaining to plot no.B-33, measuring an
area of 2250 sq. ft., situated at City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel
City, Bokaro, to the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1
submits that since the respondent no.4 has passed the impugned
order dated 11th March, 2020 exercising power under Section 14 of
the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred
as the 'SARFAESI Act'), the petitioner has statutory/efficacious remedy
of preferring an application under Section 17 of the said Act.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue of
maintainability of the present writ petition.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of
India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., reported in (2010) 8 SCC
110, has held as under:
"42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set
aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice
issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she
could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1).
The expression "any person" used in Section 17(1) is of wide import.
It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor
or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under
Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate
Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and
18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule.
It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person
under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective."
Further, in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Noble
Kumar & Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 620, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:
"27. The "appeal" under Section 17 is available to the borrower against
any measure taken under Section 13(4). Taking possession of the
secured asset is only one of the measures that can be taken by the
secured creditor. Depending upon the nature of the secured asset and
the terms and conditions of the security agreement, measures other
than taking the possession of the secured asset are possible under
Section 13(4). Alienating the asset either by lease or sale, etc. and
appointing a person to manage the secured asset are some of those
possible measures. On the other hand, Section 14 authorises the
Magistrate only to take possession of the property and forward the
asset along with the connected documents to the borrower (sic the
secured creditor). Therefore, the borrower is always entitled to prefer
an "appeal" under Section 17 after the possession of the secured asset
is handed over to the secured creditor. Section 13(4)(a) declares that
the secured creditor may take possession of the secured assets. It does
not specify whether such a possession is to be obtained directly by the
secured creditor or by 6 resorting to the procedure under Section 14.
We are of the opinion that by whatever manner the secured creditor
obtains possession either through the process contemplated under
Section 14 or without resorting to such a process obtaining of the
possession of a secured asset is always a measure against which a
remedy under Section 17 is available."
It may thus be construed from the aforesaid judgments that the
proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act being consequential
action of issuing notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act, the
efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved person under Section
17 of the said Act.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent
no.1 that the borrower of loan from the respondent no.1, namely,
Manoj Kumar Singh, representing M/s. Maa Pyari Steel Private Limited
(respondent no.2 herein), had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.1543 of 2020 against the steps taken by the bank under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The said writ petition was, however,
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26th March, 2021 keeping
in view the pendency of the application before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Ranchi. The present petitioner was also one of the
respondents in the said writ petition.
Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this court is of
the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate
recourse against the impugned order dated 11th March, 2020 passed
by the respondent no.4 in SARFAESI Case no.55 of 2018-19 by
preferring an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
