Canara Bank vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2026

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                            2026:JHHC:8744


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                WP(C) No.1926 of 2026
                                           -----
             Canara Bank, represented through its Authorized Officer,
             Specialised A.R.M. Branch, being Mr. Keshava Ranjan, aged
             about 37 years son of Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary, both having
             their office at "Canara Bank," ARMB Branch, Pee Pee Compund,
             P.O. GPO & P.S. Lower Bazar, District: Ranchi
                                                          ... Petitioner(s).
                                     Versus
             1.The State of Jharkhand
             2. District Magistrate cum Dy. Commissioner Ramgarh having its
             office at Collectorate, P.O., P.S. & District Ramgarh.
             3. M/s Sky Enterprises a proprietorship concern represented
             through its proprietor Mohammad Akhtar Khan having its office at
             Nayasarai, Near NH Office, Ramgarh Cantt. P.O. & P.S.
             Ramgarh Cantt., District-Ramgarh
             4. Mohammad Akhtar Khan son of Noor Mohammad Khan,
             residing at Nayasarai, Near NH Office, Ramgarh Cantt. P.O. &
             P.S. Ramgarh Cantt., District-Ramgarh
             5. Shahnaz Begum wife of Akhtar Khan residing at Nayasarai,
             Near NH Office, Ramgarh Cantt. P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh Cantt.,
             District-Ramgarh
             6. Firoz Khan son of Akhtar Khan residing at Nayasarai, Near NH
             Office, Ramgarh Cantt. P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh Cantt., District-
             Ramgarh                                         ... Respondent(s).

             CORAM      :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II .........

02 /26.03.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner who is a Bank that the District Magistrate-cum-District Commissioner, Ramgarh is not cooperating with the petitioner for taking possession of the secured assets which is all that piece and Parcel of the property situated at mauza-Naisarai (Naisarai Basti), Khata No. 30, Khewat No. 1, Tauzi No. 28, Plot No. 64, Anchal Ramgarh, Thana-Ramgarh, Thana No. 145, Area 10 Decimal, District Ramgarh within the limit of Ramgarh Municipal in the name of Mohammad Akhtar Khan vide sale deed no. 2730 dated 05.09.1985.

2026:JHHC:8744

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the representation, the District Magistrate has not passed any order and nor provided assistance to the petitioner in taking possession of the said property.

4. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, reads as follows:-

"14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.--(1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him--

(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and

(b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor: [Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that--

(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application;

(ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period;

(iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub-clause (ii)above;

(iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount;

(v) consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non-performing asset;

(vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the borrower;

(vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower;

(viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act;

(ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder had been complied with:

Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets1 [within a period of thirty days from the date of application]:

[Provided also that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days.] Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated in the first proviso shall not apply to proceeding pending before any District

2026:JHHC:8744

Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act.] [(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,--

(i) to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto; and

(ii) to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.] (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-

section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate [any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate] done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority."

5. After perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the time is an essence of Section 14. It is the bounden statutory duty of the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh to assist the secured creditor in taking of the secured assets within 30 days which is extendable to 60 days.

6. In this case, the petitioner had applied in 2024, till date, as per the grievance of the petitioner, the District- Magistrate has failed in his statutory duty.

7. This delay will definitely frustrate the provision of the Act. Thus, I direct the Deputy Commissioner / District Magistrate, Ramgarh to immediately within two weeks take appropriate steps and disposed of the application of the petitioner in terms of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

8. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) 26.03.2026 Tanuj/CP-2

Uploaded on 30.03.2026