Authum Investment and Infrastucture Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:6507

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 518 of 2026

¶6

Authum Investment And Infrastucture Limited Through Its Chief Manager Neeraj Kumar Jha S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Jha, Aged About 46 Years, Having Branch Office At Office First Floor, C-246/6, Vallabh Nagar, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶10

2 - The Additional Tehsildar, Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur Pin 492001 (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Maal Jamadar, Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur, Pin 492001 (C.G.)

¶12

4 - M/s J.P. Industries, Through Its Proprietor Mrs. Archana Gupta Office At Plot No. 48c And 48d, Bhanpuri Industrial Area, Bhanpuri Raipur District Raipur Pin 492001 (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Archana Gupta W/o Sanjay Gupta, R/o C-2, Gawari Apartment Gali No. 1 Near Amit Sales, Fafadih Raipur District Raipur, Pin 492001 (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Sanjay Gupta @ Sanjay Yamuna Prasad Gupta S/o Yamuna Prasad Shivnarayan Gupta, R/o C-2, Gawari Apartment Gali No. 1 Near Amit Sales, Fafadih Raipur District Raipur, Pin 492001 (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3/State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer

¶17

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 05.02.2026

¶18

Digitally
signed by BINI
BINI PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date:2026.02.06
11:05:37
+0530

¶19

2

¶20

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶21

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by non-execution of order passed by the learned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur under the provisions of Section 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act of 2002’).

¶22

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that despite there being clear order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the Additional Tehsildar/Tehsildar, Raipur failed to discharge his statutory duty. He would further submit that non-performing Assets are a huge burden on the public exchequer, banking and financial system and therefore, the Tehsildar, Raipur is under obligation to comply with the direction/order passed under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002. He would pray for a direction to the concerned Tehsildar to comply with the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.

¶23

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record.

¶24

5. It is surprising to note that time and again, this Court is coming across cause of action raised by the Bank aggrieved by the fact that order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is not being executed by the Tehsildar. The scheme of the Act of 2002 enjoins the District Magistrate / Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass an order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 within the extended period of 60 days and thereafter, the Tehsildar or the concerned Revenue Authority to execute such order without any unnecessary delay. Merely because, time frame is not prescribed for execution of an order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, does not mean that the

¶25

3

¶26

concerned Tehsildar would sit over the matter, thereby frustrating the object of the Act of 2002.

¶27

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.D. Jain & Co. Vs. Capital First Limited and Others, reported in 2023(1) SCC 675, while explaining the object of jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 held as under :

¶28

"23. However, for taking physical possession of the secured assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor is obliged to approach the CMM/DM by way of a written application requesting for taking possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and for being forwarded to it (secured creditor) for further action. The statutory obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM is to immediately move into action after receipt of a written application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act from the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such an application is received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass an order after verification of compliance of all formalities by the secured creditor referred to in the proviso in Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that regard, to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity.

¶29

As mandated by Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM has to act within the stipulated time-limit and pass a suitable order for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets within a period of 30 days from the date of application which can be extended for such further period but not exceeding in the aggregate, sixty days. Thus, the powers exercised by the CMM/DM is a ministerial act. He cannot brook delay. Time is of the essence. This is the spirit of the special enactment.”

¶30

4

¶31

7. Accordingly, Tehsildar, Raipur is directed to comply with the order dated 20.8.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in MJC Case No. 556/2024 (Annexure-P/1) expeditiously preferably within a maximum period of 30 days from the production of copy of this order.

¶32

8. District Magistrate, Raipur is also directed to look into the compliance of this order.

¶33

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

10. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶35

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶36

Judge

¶37

Bini

Authum Investment and Infrastucture Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Authum Investment and Infrastucture Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadev Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, Sanawal Vs Anand Kumar Netam

Sunil Maitry Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sheshnath Pandey Vs Shri Pardeshi Siddharth Komal

Ravishankar Institute of Nursing Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Kumar Bajpai Vs State of Chhattisgarh