Madras High Court
Canara Bank vs M/S.Infinite Switch Gear on 6 April, 2023
CRP(MD)No.925 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
C.R.P(MD)No.925 of 2023
Canara Bank ... Petitioner/Petitioner
-vs-
M/s.Infinite Switch Gear,
Proprietor Thiru.C.Siva Kumar,
S/o.Thiru.V.Chandran ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
against the return order made in Crl.M.P. Filing No.30140/2023 on the file
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, dated 07.02.2023 & 02.03.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Madhan Alexandar
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
In view of the fact that the challenge is to the return endorsement
made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, notice to the
respondent is deemed unnecessary.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.925 of 2023
2. It is a very unfortunate case where the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate seeks to interpret the orders of this Court, that too wrongly.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, had returned an
application filed by the bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002,
requiring the bank to produce the original documents relating to the
mortgage by an order dated 06.08.2022. Since the bank could not
convince the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that production of original
records is not necessary, the bank was forced to challenge the order in
C.R.P.(MD)No.74 of 2023. A Division Bench of this Court by order, dated
11.01.2023, allowed the said writ petition and observed as follows:
“6.We find force in the aforesaid contentions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned
docket orders made in CRL MP filing No.12626/2022 on the
file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, dated
06.08.2022, 01.11.2022, 21.11.2022 are set aside. We direct
the petitioner to re-present the petition filed under Section 14
of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dindigul, within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such re-
presentation, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dindigul, is directed to take the petition in CRL MP filing No.
12626/2022 on file, without insisting upon production of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.925 of 2023
original documents for verification, and number the same, if
the papers are otherwise in order. Registry is directed to
return the original petition filed along with this revision to
the learned counsel for the petitioner after getting attesting
copies of same.”
3. Again, a similar petition filed by the bank was returned by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul (Same Officer), seeking production of
originals. The learned counsel appearing for the bank made the following
endorsement:
“As per order in CRP(MD)No.74 of 2023 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court Madurai Bench dated 11.01.2023. It is
not mandatory to produce the original documents for
verification.
On foot of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court
this petition may be numbered and commissioner may be
appointed.”
4. In response to that return endorsement made by the learned
counsel for the bank, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, again returned
the papers with the following observations:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.925 of 2023
“In CRP.No.74 of 2023 dated 11.01.2023 order
passed by our Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
is not applicable for all petitions and not directed to take all
the petitions to file without production of the original
documents.
Hence for production of the original documents this
petition is returned.”
5. This we find very strange. Once this Court had held that the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall not insist on production of original
documents in applications filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002, a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court will operate as a
precedent.
6. It is fundamental principle of law that judgment of the High Court
will operate as a precedent even if it is a uncontested judgment. It is
rather unfortunate that a Senior Officer at the level of Chief Judicial
Magistrate should state that the order of the Division Bench of the High
Court will be applicable only for that case and not for all petitions. In any
event, in order to cure the ignorance of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dindigul, while allowing this civil revision petition, this Court
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.925 of 2023
directs her to take on file the application under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, without insisting on production of originals.
We make it clear that our judgment will apply to all cases and the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, shall not return the papers in any
application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, requiring
the bank to produce the original documents. No Costs.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
06.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes
PM
Note:Registry is directed to return the original petition
to the petitioner to represent the same.
To:
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dindigul.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.925 of 2023
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
pm
C.R.P(MD)No.925 of 2023
06.04.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
