Disposed

Bank of India v. The District Magistrate

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2023WPC/2748/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, directed the District Magistrate to decide the petitioner's application for possession of secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within 30 days, citing excessive pendency.

What did the court decide?

The respondent District Magistrate is directed to decide the application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Bank of India Vs The District Magistrate — Chhattisgarh HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 2748 of 2023

¶5

Bank Of India Through Authorized Officer Sukhkveer Singh Aged 56 Posted At Regional Office Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The District Magistrate Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

06/07/2023

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being secured creditor submitted an application under Section 14 of the the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002') before the District Magistrate on 14.09.2022 for possession of secured asset. On 15.9.2022 the District Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and issued notice to the borrower. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by respondent District Magistrate on different dates, but on each date the matter was adjourned for filing reply by the borrower. He submits that as per provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the District Magistrate is duty bound to conclude the proceedings within a period of 30 days from the date of application. As petitioner's application is pending

¶15

¶16

before the respondent District Magistrate for the last more than nine months, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002, therefore, a direction be issued to respondent District Magistrate to conclude the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 within the specified time period.

¶17

Learned State counsel does not dispute submissions of counsel for petitioner based on Annexure P/4, which are the proceedings of application filed under Section 14 of the Act, 2002.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with writ petition.

¶19

Considering the submissions of counsel for respective parties, the proceedings recorded by District Magistrate from 15.9.2022 to 16.03.2023; the fact that application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is still pending consideration, as submitted by counsel for the petitioner, and further considering the provisions under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the respondent is directed to decide application of petitioner filed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶20

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off.

¶21

Certified copy as per rules.

¶22

Sd/- ( Parth Prateem Sahu ) JUDGE

¶23

Nisha

Bank of India v. The District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. The District Magistrate

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

Phool Sai Maravi Vs R.P. Verma

Virendra Kumar Pant Vs Nitin Dansena

Mayank Verma, Vs Kamalpreet Singh

manikdas Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfied Limited Vs Sheikh Shahbaj

Smt. Ramkali Vs State of Chhattisgarh