Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uco Bank Having Branch Office At Old ... vs M/S Pragya Dal Mill on 24 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Hirdesh, Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
DB :- HON'BLE SHRI ANAND PATHAK &
HON'BLE SHRI HIRDESH, JJ
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3611 of 2024
UCO BANK HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT OLD HIGHCOURT ROAD
INDERGANJ GWALIOR M.P. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OF
Versus
M/S PRAGYA DAL MILL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri D.K. Agarwal - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Per Justice Anand Pathak:-
With consent, heard finally.
2. The instant petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the order dated 25-05-2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhind may be quashed and it may be directed to act in accordance
with section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the directions issued by Hon''ble
Highcourt in W.P. No. 26176/2023 and dispose the same within the stipulated
time limit,
(ii) any other relief deemed fit and expedient in the facts of the case may also be
granted to the petitioner."
3. Petitioner is a secured creditor in the present case is taking exception to
order dated 25.05.2024 passed by CJM, Bhind whereby application under
Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as "the Act,
2002") preferred by petitioner as secured creditor stands rejected because of
non production of original/certified documents.
4. It is the submission of learned Counsel for petitioner that proceeding
under consideration before CJM, Bhind was in respect of Section 14 of the
Act, 2002 and not in respect of Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the Act,
2002.
5. It is further submitted that respondents/borrowers have already
challenged the proceedings and order under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002
before learned DRT, purportedly under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. Therefore,
they have already availed the statutory remedy which is available to them.
Therefore, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the
respondents/borrowers in this regard. Section 14 of the Act, 2002 is a
proceeding consequential to Section 13 of the Act, 2002. Learned counsel for
petitioner relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court passed recently
vide order dated 14.02.2025 in WP No.11500/2020 whereby Full Bench of
this Court held that remedy to the secured creditor is not available under
Section 17 of the Act, 2002. It is only available to the borrower or any person
affected by the action of secured creditor. Therefore, secured creditor has no
remedy to approach for proceedings under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. Hence,
this petition is preferred.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner further relied upon the judgments passed
by Division Bench of this Court in the case of IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD.
vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vide order dated 27.02.2024 passed
in WP No.2078/2023 and in the case of Cholamandalam Investment And
Finance Company Ltd. Through Its Authorised Officer Ravi Sahu Vs. Indal
Singh & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine MP 9114 vide order dated 27.11.2024
passed in MP No.6395/2024 and seeks parity. According to him, in Para 11 of
Cholamandalam Investment (supra), this Court has held that Section 14 of
the Act, 2002 appears to be consequential in nature and therefore, no notice is
required to be given to borrower.
7. Learned counsel for respondents fairly submits regarding passing of
Full Bench of this Court, however, tries to distinguish the case on the ground
that proceeding under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 is a quasi judicial function,
therefore, in view of the amendment caused in Section 14 of the Act, 2002 on
15.01.2013, notice is required to be given. Learned counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Authorised Officer, Indian
Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi & Anr. reported in (2019) 20 SCC 47.
8. Heard.
9. In the case at hand, petitioner submits that he has filed all relevant
documents along with the application before CJM Court. However, so far as
original documents are concerned that are to be shown at the time of
consideration, petitioner is ready to produce all those documents. Therefore, if
petitioner is ready to show all documents in original before the concerned
authority, then concerned authority must consider that aspect and thereafter,
proceed as per law.
10. Here, it appears that Magistrate does not exercise his jurisdiction and
caused illegality. Contents of Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and the amendment
caused in Section 14 of the Act, 2002 on 15.01.2013, intend to verify the
documents of secured creditor. That verification can be made by the
Magistrate, if the documents are originally shown to the authority. Even
authority can ask for production of those documents in original. Therefore, in
the considered opinion of this Court, hyper technical approach has been
adopted by the learned Magistrate and caused illegality. Petitioner can show
its own documents then and there only at the time of hearing, if not already
filed.
11. Resultantly, petition stands allowed and impugned order dated 25.05.2024
passed by learned CJM, Bhind is hereby set aside. Petitioner is at liberty to
produce all documents in original form for satisfaction of authority.
12. C.c. as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
VIJAY
VJ DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=663cb09dd950bfc3ea7ed4f
TRIPAT
02d97ddae5364f1d4b042dbc59921
b76e812d2d6b, ou=GWALIOR
COURT,CID - 7022539,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
HI
serialNumber=58392d8c4e7c9693bf
eeb5b46b3ca006f1127e89008952bb
ec528ce4d82551bd, cn=VIJAY
TRIPATHI
Date: 2025.03.27 22:18:12 -07'00'
