Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. Throu. Its Legal Manager Sahadevan Sameesh v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
Keywords: Section 14 order; secured asset; taking of possession; Tahsildar; Circle Officer; police protection charges paid by financial company; contempt of court order; breach of court order; FIR for obstruction; DRT; Securitisation Application; restoration of possession; One Time Settlement; Rs. 5,00,000 deposit; Rs. 40,00,000 outstanding; three-month moratorium on auction; interveners; writ petition disposed; liberty to apply; Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited; State of Maharashtra. Relevance: enforcement of secured-asset possession with police/Tahsildar aid despite obstruction; sequencing of a pending Securitisation Application behind physical possession; rejection of OTS-based retention of possession; interim restraint on auction after repossession.
What did the court decide?
Petition disposed of with directions: Tahsildar to fix date for taking possession of the secured asset within two weeks with adequate police protection at the Petitioner's cost; liberty to register FIR against obstructing Interveners, resistance being treated as contempt/breach of this Court's orders (no contempt notice issued for the present); Securitisation Application before the DRT to be decided on merits only after possession is handed over to the Petitioner; limited protection of three-month moratorium on auction of the property from repossession; One Time Settlement of Interveners to be considered on its own merits; liberty to apply.