Allowed

Hdb Financial Services Limited Thr. Its Authorized Officer v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp

Bombay HC12 Aug 2024WP/1080/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A creditor whose Section 14 SARFAESI order had been executed sought re-delivery of a secured property after trespass by private respondents. Relying on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., the High Court held fresh proceedings were unnecessary and directed restoration of possession.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents nos. 2 to 4 to restore possession of the secured property in compliance with the order dated 10/03/2023 under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, within the timeframe provided, if no pro

Hdb Financial Services Limited Thr. Its Authorized… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/5

¶3

22 - WP 1080 OF 2024.doc

¶4

Digitally signed KANCHAN by KANCHANVINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date:2024.08.14 18:52:32 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1080 OF 2024

¶8

HDB Financial Services Limited ….. Petitioner

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Charles Dsouza a/w. Mr. Padmakar Garad for the Petitioner. Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Additional G.P. a/w. Mrs. M. S. Srivastava, A.G.P. for the State.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ

¶13

DATE : 12^th AUGUST, 2024

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned

¶16

counsel for the parties.

¶17

Leave granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to

¶18

correct the description of the respondent no.3. The correction be carried out forthwith.

¶19

By this writ petition, the petitioner, a creditor prays that the

¶20

KVM

¶21

2/5

¶22

22 - WP 1080 OF 2024.doc

¶23

order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 10^th March 2023 be re-executed. This is in view of the fact that after the aforesaid order was executed and possession was delivered on 5^th September 2023, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 thereafter tresspassed into the property on 27^th October 2023. Hence, the petitioner on 30^th October 2023 lodged a complaint. In this backdrop, the petitioner on 7^th December, 2023 filed an application before the District Magistrate seeking delivery of the possession again. Since no steps were taken in this regard, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶24

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that by the judgment dated 30^th June, 2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 6805 of 2023 (Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) to which one of us (Rajesh S. Patil, J.) was a party, a similar issue has been considered and decided. Directions have been issued to re-deliver possession and

¶25

KVM

¶26

3/5

¶27

22 - WP 1080 OF 2024.doc

¶28

it has been made clear that it would not be necessary for the creditor to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 14 of the said Act.

¶29

We find that this Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. (supra) has considered a similar issue and has held that it would not be open for a party to dis-regard the action taken under Section 14 of the said Act and re-enter into possession. In paragraph (13) of the said order, it has been observed as under :-

¶30

Considering the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and referred to by us above, we are unable to agree with the submission made by the learned AGP that the District Magistrate does not have the power to re-execute his own order or that he has become functus officio. If we were to take the view as propounded by the learned AGP it would lead to a complete chaos. We have no hesitation in stating that the borrowers have devised a novel, unimaginable and unsustainable modus operandi to defeat the ends of justice. It is not only the matter of physical altercation by assaulting the security guard appointed by the Petitioner Bank and breaking open the lock and seal affixed on the secured asset which is wholly illegal, but the same would also tantamount to an assault on the law and the statute itself. If, after orders are passed under section 14 for dispossession of the borrower, and the same are inter-meddled with by any person

¶31

KVM

¶32

4/5

¶33

22 - WP 1080 OF 2024.doc

¶34

including the borrower, the same would result in a mockery of the rule of law. In such a situation the court cannot and should not remain a mute spectator and allow the illegality to continue. The tendency of trying to overreach the law as well as the orders passed by Judicial Authorities has to be nipped in the bud right away, lest the rule of law shall suffer.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid, we are satisfied that the petitioner

¶36

is entitled to a similar relief as was granted in the aforesaid writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as under :-

¶37

(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to Issue a writ in the name of Mandamus or suitable direction to Respondent No.2 to 4 to restore the possession of the secured asset/s mortgaged propertie/s i.e. all the piece and parcel of the Property H B No. 18/2 situated on 2^nd Floor area admeasuring 636 sq.ft. i.e. 59.11 sq. Mtrs. Built Up situated at CTS No. 2154 Sheet No. 153 having PCMC Milk at No-107601609.00 and Parperty i.e. 59.11 sq.Mts. Build up situated at CTS No. 2154 Sheet No. 153 Opposite Shani Mandir near Sai Chouck, Pimpari, Pune-411017 from Respondents No.5 to 10 in compliance of orders dated 10/03/2023 passed by the respondent No.2 in Securitisation Application No. SECU/SR/803/2023, seeking assistance under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 within the timeframe as provided in the order.

¶38