Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tata Capital Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16144
1 WP-4935-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4935 of 2025
TATA CAPITAL LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri H.Y. Mehta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Ms. Anushka Vyas - Advocate for the respondent No. 4.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Heard on I.A. No.3463/2025, that is an application filed by petitioner
seeking modification of order dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P. No. 4935/2025.
02. Petitioner filed this petition challenging the order of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Indore passed in MJC R/28463/2024 (Annexure P/1) whereby the
application filed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter
referred for short 'SARFAESI Act') has been dismissed, in which following reliefs
were sought.
"7.1 Direct the learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate,
Indore to dispose of the application under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act (Annexure P/1) within 15 days; and
7.2 Direct the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
to proceed in the matter as per guidelines issued by this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16144
2 WP-4935-2025
Hon'ble Court in the matter of Poonawala Housing Finance
Limited vs. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 26170/2023-Indore
Bench) and in the case of Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.
vs. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 26176/2023 - Indore Bench);
and/or
7.3 Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case."
03. However, when the Writ Petition came up for hearing before this Court
on 10.03.2025, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by observing firstly that
the application under Section 14 of SARFAESI has been dismissed on 18.04.2023
and thereafter on 16.02.2024 and secondly that the petitioner has remedy before
the DRT. So far as the order dated 18.04.2023 and 16.02.2024 are concerned,
these orders were passed by the competent authority in the earlier round of
application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. However, in the present case
the petitioner filed 3rd application before the CJM which has been pending for
adjudication, hence, the petitioner sought limited relief to the extent of direction to
the CJM to decide the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act at the
earliest.
04. So far the second part of the order is concerned that "the petitioner has
remedy before the DRT to challenge the aforesaid two orders", Shri Mehta,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar issue came up for
consideration before the Division Bench in the case of Punjab National Bank vs.
Additional District Magistrate, Raisen & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 25147/2024)
wherein the Division Bench has held that the remedy of Section 17 of SARFAESI
Act is not available to the financial institution/bank, that remedy is only available
to the borrower/guarantor. The word 'any person' does not include the financial
institution, therefore, the said observation that the petitioner has a remedy
available before the DRT is liable to be modified. The petitioner be given liberty
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16144
3 WP-4935-2025
to avail the remedy available under the law.
05. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor/respondent No.
4 opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that if the order is modified as
prayed by the petitioner that would amount to review of the entire order which is
not permissible under Chapter 30A of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules,
2008 for which the petitioner is required to file a review petition before this Court.
Learned counsel submits that initially the word 'review' was also there in the said
Rule, but by way of amendment the said word 'review' has been deleted. After
amendment, the Rule 30-A of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules,
2008 reads as under:-
"30A. An application for recall/modification/
clarification of an order/judgment or extension of
time, supported by an affidavit and with
documents, if any, shall be registered as an I.A.
(Interlocutory application) in the main case."
06. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor further submits
that now under Rule 30-A only the correction of typographical error can be
considered and entire order is not liable to be modified.
07. It is clear from the above Rule that by way of an application, the
correction of typographical error or clarification or modification or for extension
of time, the order / judgment supported by an affidavit with the documents, if any,
shall be registered as an I.A. in the main disposed of case which do not go into the
merits of the matter.
08. The petitioner is seeking modification in view of the judgment passed
by this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) that the DRT is not the
remedy, which can be modified in this case itself by observing that the DRT is not
an appropriate remedy as held by the Division Bench of this Court (supra),
therefore, this application is maintainable. Even otherwise the intervenors are only
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16144
4 WP-4935-2025
legal heir of the co-borrower who cannot object in the proceedings under Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act. The proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act are only to provide assistance for taking possession by the financial institution
or the bank, therefore, they can't object each and every proceeding like an
adversary litigant.
0 9 . The application is allowed. Order is corrected to the extent that in
place of word 'DRT' the word 'any forum in accordance with the law' is hereby
substituted. Final outcome of the petition is still same and the petition is still
treated to be disposed of as not entertainable, therefore, no need to file a review
petition by the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off to the extent indicated above.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
