Madhya Pradesh High Court
Idbi Bank Ltd Through The ... vs District Magistrate/ District ... on 31 March, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-5791-2021
(IDBI BANK LTD THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER SHRI FAISAL RAHAT Vs DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE/ DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS)
Indore, Dated : 31-03-2021
Shri Bhavil Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent / State.
With consent of the parties, finally heard.
This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India take exception to the order dated 19/08/2020, whereby learned
Additional Collector, District - Mandsaur rejected the application
preferred by the petitioner / Bank under section 14 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 2002 by holding that since the action sought
to be taken relates to a residential accommodation, it is exempted
under section 31 of the said Act, and hence the application of the
Bank preferred under section 14 is not maintainable.
Shri Bhavil Pandey, learned coiunsel for the petitioner by taking
this Court to the language employed in section 31 of the said Act,
submits that it excludes only such property which are not specifically
charged with the debt recoverab;e under this Act, whereas in the
instant case, the accommodation in question was specifically charged
for the purpose of recovery of debt. This aspect has not been
considered by learned Additional District Magistrate, which runs
contrary to the judgment of Kerla High Court reported in AIR 2005
Kerla,305.
The prayer is opposed by Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Govt.
Advocate.
No other point is pressed by the parties.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
Section 31 of the Act reads as under :
31 Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases.--
The provisions of this Act shall not apply to--
xx xx xx xx
(g) 1[any properties not liable to attachment
(excluding the properties specifically charged with the debt
recoverable under this Act)] or sale under the first proviso to
sub-section (1) of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908)"
Plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the properties
which are not specifically charges with the debt recoverable under the
Act are only excluded from the purview of the Clause(g) of Section 31
of the Act. Putting it differently, if a property is specifically charged
with the debt recoverable under the Act, it falls within the purview of
Clause (g) of section 31 of the Act . Plain reading of the impugned
order dated 19/08/2020 shows that learned Additional Collector
machanically read the said provision and opined that since the house
in question is a residential accommodation of non-applicant, in which
he resides, it is beyond the purview of section 31 of the said Act.
Learned Additional Collector has failed to examine, whether the said
accommodation falls within the ambit of exclusion Clause mentioned
in clause (g). Thus, the impugned order dated 19/08/2020 cannot
sustain judicial scrutiny.
Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is
remitted back to learned Additional Collector to examine the aforesaid
aspect and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Present petiton
is allowed to the extent indicated above.
C c as pet rules.
( SUJOY PAUL) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by AMOL N
MAHANAG
Date: 2021.04.01 16:48:59
+05'30'
