Jharkhand High Court
Hdb Financial Services Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 23 October, 2024
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.5643 of 2024
-----
HDB Financial Services PVT LTD., a company incorporated
under the companies act having its head office at Ground
Floor, Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, Mahalakshmi,
Mumbai-400034 and one of its branch at Nile Complex, 1st,
Shop-03, Hazaribagh Road, Kantatoli, Ranchi-834001,
Jharkhand through its authorised officer Puja Sur, D/o
Amaresh Sur, R/o 59A, Central Road, Kolkata-700032,
presently posted as a Legal Associate, HDB Financial Service
Ltd., 6th Floor, Thapar House, P.O.-Lalbazar, P.S.-Burrabazar,
25 Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
3. Bhagwati Enterprises through Sanjiv Kumar, S/o Ram
Naresh Choudhary, Shop No.201 Baralal Street Upper
Bazar, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Ranchi (Sadar), District-Ranchi.
4. Sanjiv Kumar, S/o Ram Naresh Choudhary, R/o Near
Home Gauri Office Harmu Housing Colony, Argora, P.O. &
P.S.-Argora, District-Ranchi.
5. Poonam Chaudhary, W/o Sanjiv Kumar, R/o Near Home
Gauri Office Harmu Housing Colony, Argora, P.O. & P.S.-
Argora, District-Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
-----
Order No.04 Date: 23.10.2024
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of
direction upon the respondent no. 2- the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi to forthwith dispose of the
application preferred by the petitioner under Section 14 of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short,
"the SARFAESI Act, 2002").
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a non-banking financial company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent nos.3, 4
& 5 are the borrowers who applied for loan from the
petitioner-company for enhancement of their business and
were granted financial assistance to the tune of
Rs.36,35,000/- & Rs.5,15,000/- through loan account
nos.10819123 and 17034264 respectively. The said loan
was sanctioned to the said respondents subject to the
terms and conditions which were accepted by them. After
availing the loan, the said respondents failed to abide by
the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and thus
committed default in repayment of the loan amount with
respect to the aforesaid loan accounts. Accordingly, the
said loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing
Assets (NPA) on 02.02.2023 and the petitioner-company
issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 16.02.2023
through registered post. Despite the said notice, the said
respondents ignored payment of outstanding dues to the
petitioner-company due to which the possession notice
dated 18th April, 2023 issued under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with rule 8(1) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was served to them
through registered post which was also published in 'Hindi'
and 'English' daily newspapers on 22.04.2023. The
representative of the petitioner-company tried to take the
possession of the mortgaged property, however the
borrowers i.e., the respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 did not
cooperate in the same. Under the said circumstance,
the petitioner-company preferred an application under
Section 14(1) & 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before
the respondent no.2 on 01.11.2023. Thereafter, the
respondent no.2 vide press release dated 19.01.2024,
ordered the authorised officer of the petitioner-company
for publication of notice in two daily newspapers.
Accordingly, the notice was published in the newspaper on
26.02.2024. However, no further action has been taken by
the respondent no. 2 in this regard which has compelled
the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Balkrishna Rama Tarle (Dead) through legal
representatives and another Vs. Phoenix Arc
Private Limited and Others reported in (2023) 1 SCC
662, paragraph-16 of which reads as under:
"16. The statutory obligation enjoined upon the
CMM/DM is to immediately move into action after
receipt of a written application under Section 14(1) of
the SARFAESI Act from the secured creditor for that
purpose. As soon as such an application is received, the
CMM/DM is expected to pass an order after verification
of compliance of all formalities by the secured creditor
referred to in the proviso in Section 14(1) of the
SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that regard,
to take possession of the secured assets and
documents relating thereto and to forward the same to
the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity. As
observed and held by this Court in NKGSB Coop Bank
Ltd. V. Subir Chakravarty, the aforesaid act is a
ministerial act. It cannot brook delay. Time is of the
essence and this is the spirit of the special enactment."
4. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 is under
statutory obligation to assist the petitioner-company i.e.
the secured creditor in taking possession of the security
assets. The exercise under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002 was to be completed by the respondent no. 2
within a period of 30 days from the date of the application
which in the given circumstance could not have exceeded
the period of 60 days in aggregate. Keeping the said
proceeding pending for unlimited period frustrates the
provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Under the said
circumstance, the respondent no. 2 may be directed to
conclude the proceeding under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 without any further delay.
5. Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I appearing
on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, submits that
there is no dispute with respect to the mandate of Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and hence if the proceeding
in question has not yet been concluded by the respondent
no.2, the same will be concluded without further delay.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping
in view the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Balkrishna Rama Tarle
(supra), the respondent no.2 is directed to expedite the
proceeding in question and to conclude the same as soon
as possible and not beyond the period of 30 days from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid
direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Arpit/
