Madhya Pradesh High Court
Capri Global Housing Finance Ltd ... vs The District Magistrate on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7512
1 WP-9432-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9432 of 2025
CAPRI GLOBAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICER PAWAN SINGH THAKUR
Versus
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner is not challenging any specific order, but is aggrieved by the inaction of
respondent no.1 in not deciding the application under Section 14 of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act 2002 (referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' hereinafter) filed by
the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of advancing loan
facilities to its customers. The petitioner had extended loan to the borrower and in
order to secure the repayment of said loan created equitable mortgage/security
interest in respect of the mortgaged property. Due to default in payment of EMIs',
account of borrower was classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA). Thereafter,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7512
2 WP-9432-2025
petitioner had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the
borrower. Subsequently, notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was
published in the newspaper and affixed on the properties of the borrower. Since
the borrower failed to handover the physical possession of the secured asset,
petitioner had moved an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
before the respondent /District Magistrate, Rajgarh which has not been decided by
the respondent till date, hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid, a
direction to respondent be issued to decide the pending application as
expeditiously as possible. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 23.11.2023 in Writ Petition No.
26170/2023 passed by this Court in case of Poonawalla Housing Finance Ltd. vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the innocuous prayer made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under:
''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 o r 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-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7512
3 WP-9432-2025
(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 authorized 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 subsection (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;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7512
4 WP-9432-2025
(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 assets [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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7512
5 WP-9432-2025
his opinion, be necessary.
(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate 1[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.'' (Emphasis supplied)
7. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the District
Magistrate is under a statutory obligation to decide the application under Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act within thirty days.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the respondent herein is directed to
decide the pending application of the petitioner filed under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.
10 . It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
