Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Magistrate beyond the stipulated period under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold the provision directory and dismissed the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
WRIT PETITION No.6878 of 2023
ORDER:- (per Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)
Heard Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt V.Dyumani, learned standing counsel for the respondent-bank. With the consent of both the learned counsels, this writ petition is taken up for hearing.
have been passed within the original 30 days that is on 19.01.2023 or latest by the extended period of 30 days namely by 20.01.2023. He relies upon the provision under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in support of these. By arguing that this provision is mandatory, the learned counsel submits that the order passed on 28.02.2023 is invalid in law as it is beyond the stipulated period.
2
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent particularly as the submissions are based on a judgment of the Hon’ble
1 AIR 2020 SC 5747
3
Supreme Court of India which was directly dealing with the points that is an issue in this case.
in the writ petition. Therefore, the same is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
_______________________ JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
21.03.2023 RKS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the time limit stipulated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory or directory?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.Bright v/s The District Collector and OrsRelied on¶8
C.Bright v/s The District Collector and Ors, 1 AIR 2020 SC 5747 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent-Bank
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu
V. Srinivas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
