Jharkhand High Court
Cholamandalam Investment & Finance ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6646 of 2024
Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd., having its Head
Quarter at Chola Crest, C54-55, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, PO & PS-
Guindy, District Chennai, through one of its branches at Pinnacle Hotel,
Opposite Civil Court, Ranchi through its Authorised representative
Ranjeet Singh, S/o Ram Singh, R/o Bhatia Basti, Near Sai Mandir, PO &
PS-Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan ... ... 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, Ramgarh
3. Salman Khan, S/o Meherban Khan, Khan Mohalla, R/o Near Masjid,
PO-Hesla, PS-Ramgarh Cantt., District-Ramgarh
4. Meherban Khan, S/o Gulam Murtaza, R/o Near Masjid, PO-Hesla,
PS-Ramgarh Cantt., District-Ramgarh
5. Deji Parvin, D/o Meharban Khan, R/o Near Masjid, PO-Hesla, PS-
Ramgarh Cantt., District-Ramgarh
6. Md. Sarwat Sanjar, S/o Meherban Khan, Khan Mohalla, R/o Near
Masjid, PO-Hesla, PS-Ramgarh Cantt., District-Ramgarh
7. M/s Infotech through its proprietor Salman Khan, S/o Meherban
Khan, 4th Floor, Rospa Tower, Main Road, Ranchi
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I
-----
02/05.02.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of
direction upon the respondent no. 2 - the Deputy Commissioner,
Ramgarh 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
(hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act, 2002").
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is
one of the leading non-banking financial institutions registered with
RBI. It has been engaged in the business of financing for purchasing
of vehicles/houses by providing financial assistance to different
companies, body corporates and private individuals.
3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 is the
borrower and the respondent nos. 4 to 6 are co-borrowers, who had
applied for loan for the purpose of enhancement of their business to
the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- from the petitioner-company. The said loan
was sanctioned to the said applicants on their acceptance of the terms
and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter dated 20.04.2023. The
applicants (the private respondents), however, defaulted in repayment
of loan and accordingly, the concerned account was classified as Non-
Performing Asset (NPA) on 04.01.2024. Accordingly, the petitioner
served a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 dated 08.01.2024 through registered post to the said private
respondents and the same was also published in the newspapers as
per the provisions of law.
4. The private respondents having not responded to the
notice served to them under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002,
the petitioner served notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act read
with rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to
the private respondents through registered post as well as published
the same in the daily newspapers on 08.05.2024. Despite that, the
private respondents did not co-operate the petitioner in taking
possession of the property in question (i.e., the land appertaining to
Khata No. 55, Plot No. 326, Thana No. 138, Mouza-Hensla, PS-
Ramgarh, measuring an area of 10 decimals), which was pledged with
the petitioner as equitable mortgage at the time of sanction of the
loan. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner filed an application
before the respondent no. 2 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 on 24.06.2024, which was registered as SARFAESI Case No.
82/2024. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2,
instead of disposing the said application expeditiously, has still kept
the same pending without passing any effective order, which has
compelled it to prefer the present writ petition.
5. 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 & Ors." 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."
6. 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.
7. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I appearing on behalf of
the respondent nos. 1 & 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.
8. 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.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid
direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
