Disposed

Idfc First Bank Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2023WRIC/430/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a secured creditor (petitioner) seeking a direction to the District Magistrate to expeditiously decide pending proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act after the statutory timeline expired without a valid conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 2 to decide the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act expeditiously after due notice.

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 430 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Idfc First Bank Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Malhotra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a secured creditor, for a direction to the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar to take appropriate steps for disposal of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶6

A supplementary affidavit has been filed in Court today stating that the borrower has not challenged the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under the Act before any forum or court of law.

¶7

The proceedings under Section 14 of the Act are pending before respondent no.2 since 19.2.2022. Under Section 14, in case no order is passed within a period of thirty days for reasons beyond the control of the District Magistrate, he shall record reasons in writing for the same and pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days.

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner points that initially when the application was presented, the respondents reported a deficiency in stamp duty. It was paid by chalan on 24.8.2022. It is submitted that the application filed by the petitioner is now in order and despite the fact that 60 days have expired, the proceedings have not been brought to logical conclusion.

¶9

Sri Dileep Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that all effort will be made to decide the application expeditiously.

¶10

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.2 to decide the proceedings, keeping in mind the mandate of the Legislature as contained in third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, after due notice to all concerned.

¶11

(Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 24.1.2023 SL

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Idfc First Bank Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivnath Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Usha Devi Vs Union Bank of India and Another

New Bajrang Cycle Store Proprietor Sanajay Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Arun Talwar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Amit Kumar Vs Union Of India and 5 Others