Disposed

Dcb Bank Ltd. Branch Office Lucknow Thru. Authorized Representative Mr.Akash Narain v. Bharat Kishor and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2024A227/4607/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, to dispose of an application under Section 14 of the SRA Act expeditiously, noting repeated unreasoned adjournments violated the statutory timeline.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, to dispose of Application No.41178 of 2024 expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Dcb Bank Ltd. Branch Office Lucknow Thru. Authorized… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66815

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4607 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dcb Bank Ltd. Branch Office Lucknow Thru. Authorized Representative Mr.Akash Narain Respondent :- Bharat Kishor And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aniket Raj

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Aniket Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow for expeditious disposal of Application No.41178 of 2024, under Section 14 of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶8

The aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner on 15.04.2024 and a perusal of the order sheet of the case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that it has repetitively been adjourned after recording presence of the petitioner or its counsel and without assigning any reason.

¶9

The provisos appended to Section 14 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provide that suitable orders shall be passed on the application for the purpose of taking possession of the secured asset within a period of 30 days from the date of application. In case Magistrate is unable to pass an order within the aforesaid period of 30 days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass

¶10

order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate 60 days.

¶11

In the present case, the application is pending for a period far exceeding 60 days and it has repetitively been adjourned without assigning any reason.

¶12

In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow to dispose of the Application No.41178 of 2024 expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, keeping in view the statutory mandate contained in the provisos appended to Section 14 (1) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶13

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶14

Order Date :- 26.9.2024 Ram.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dcb Bank Ltd. Branch Office Lucknow Thru. Authorized Representative Mr.Akash Narain v. Bharat Kishor and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dcb Bank Ltd. Branch Office Lucknow Thru. Authorized Representative Mr.Akash Narain v. Bharat Kishor and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mewa Lal Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko.

M/S Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Thru Authorized Signatory Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs M/S Veena Traders Thru Sole Proprietor Manvendra Pratap Singh

Prince Nigam vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pinku @ Mustakeem @ Irfan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko vs Sunil Kumar Sonkar

Ram Gopal vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Dept. Lko