Disposed

Csl Finance Limited v. Pawan

DRT13 Jun 2023SA/140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held it lacks jurisdiction to direct a Magistrate to dispose of a Section 14 Securitization Act application, as Magistrates are not under its control. The applicant was directed to approach the District and Sessions Judge for administrative action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to approach District and Sessions Judge for administrative intervention to expedite disposal of the application.

Csl Finance Limited versus Pawan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

SA/140/2023 M/S CSL FINANCE LTD Vs PAWAN CHOPRA AND ANR.

¶3

13.06.2023 Item No.18

¶4

Present: Sh. Anuj Dewan, Counsel for the Applicant.

¶5

Heard on the SA titled by M/s CSL Finance Limited (Applicant) under the Securitization Act, 2002 against Pawan Chopra and another (respondents).

¶6

It appears that the Applicant had given some credit facilities to the respondents, on the basis of the security of some immovable properties. Since the respondents did not make the repayment, the applicant initiated the recovery proceedings under the Securitization Act. During the pendency of securitization proceedings, the applicant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 14 of the Securitization Act. The grievance of the applicant is that despite the fact that the application was moved on 23.03.2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not disposed of the same. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate adjourned it on five dates without passing any effective order.

¶7

It appears that the applicant had earlier approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the application under Section 14. However, the said application was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court, vide Order dated 26^th May, 2023 passed, in CRM-M-27075 of 2023 (O&M).

¶8

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶9

Mr. Anuj Dewan, Counsel for the applicant has argued that as per the order of Hon’ble High Court, the jurisdiction in the matter vests with the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, this Tribunal should pass an order directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the application.

¶10

I am of the considered view that the applicant did not present the matter before the Hon’ble High Court in the proper perspective. The Hon’ble High Court has rightly remarked that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was not maintainable. However, the counsel for the applicant made a wrong statement before the Hon’ble High Court that the DRT has got the power to direct the CJM to pass the order on the application, under Section 14 of the Securitization Act.

¶11

Under Section 14 of the Securitization Act, the creditor can move an application to Chief Judicial Magistrate for passing an order of possession. On such an application having been filed, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has to dispose of the same within 30 days. In case, for some reasons, he cannot dispose of the same within 30 days, he can dispose it of the same within 60 days.

¶12

In case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not passed any order within 60 days, applicant could approach the Hon’ble High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and make a request that the Subordinate Court was not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it under the law.

¶13

The Securitization Act is a new legislation and certainly many Judicial Officers are not conversant with its provisions. The Judicial Officers are not working under this Tribunal and accordingly, I am of the view that no direction can be given by

¶14

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶15

this Tribunal to them to dispose of the application under Section 14 of the Securitization Act. However, the applicant may well approach the District and Sessions Judge on the administrative side and make a request to him to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the application under Section 14 of the Act, expeditiously and as per the provisions of Securitization Act. I hope the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar would certainly look into the genuine grievance of the applicant and would take appropriate action the matter. Accordingly, the SA stands disposed of. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶16

Pronounced in open court Date:13.06.2023 saurabh

¶17

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

Csl Finance Limited v. Pawan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Csl Finance Limited v. Pawan

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

Shaju Thomas versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Ambika Oils (North East) Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/s Tizu Trade Agencies

Canara Bank versus Messers Sing and Sing

Union Bank of India versus Milind

Sanjeev Gajanan Jagtap versus Central Bank of India