Dismissed

Bhola Nath Chal v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

DRT3 Jan 2024SA/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court rejected the challenge based on Supreme Court precedents and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the application challenging the jurisdiction of the ACJM to pass an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Bhola Nath Chal versus Cholamandalam Investment and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1, KOLKATA

¶2

	Order Sheet (continuation)
Case NO. SA/ IA /2741/202	5/2022 3 & IA/ 2742/2023 BHOLA NATH CHAL Vs.CHOLAMANDALA INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO LTD	M
Date of the Order	Order with Signature	Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary
Rina S. 03/01/2024	Ld. Advocate Mr. K. Chakraborty appears for the Sarfaesi Applicant. Ld. Advocate Mr. Samrat Mukherjee and Mr. R. Maity and Ms. K. Deb appear for the Respondent F.I. Sarfaesi Applicant is pressing the IA/ 2742/2023 with put up petition being no. IA/2741/2023 challenging the order of the ACJM,Chandernagore ,Hooghly u/s 14 of the Sarfaesi on the ground that ACJM has no jurisdiction to pass order u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act and relied upon the Authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead ... vs Phoenix Arc Private Limited wherein at paragraph 18 it is observed that: “the powers exercisable by CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. ” Ld. Advocate for the Respondent F.I. has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India M/S R.D. Jain And Co. vs Capital First Ltd. and Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 34 held that :

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1, KOLKATA

¶4

“(i) the District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; (ii) the expression “District Magistrate” and the “Chief Metropolitan Magistrate” as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Ld. Advocate also relied upon of Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgment in the matter of Dr. K.P. Shiyas vs. Union of India & ors. In this judgment at paragraph 11 also held that Ld. ACJM can exercise power u/s 14 of the Sarfaesi Act. Therefore the contention of the Sarfaesi Applicant in IA/ 2742/2023 that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to pass order is not tenable. Hence IA/ 2742/2023 is dismissed. Put up petition being no IA/2741/2023 is also dismissed. (Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer

¶5

Rina S.

Bhola Nath Chal v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Nath Chal v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ascon Agro Products Exporters Builders Pvt. Ltd. versus the Authorised Officer M S Edelwesiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. And Anr.

Ashoka Adhikary versus State Bank of India

Uco Bank versus Ganapati Exports Ltd. and Ors.

Sri Sudarshan Nandy versus Hdfc Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Mallick Traders

Anowara Khatun and Ors. versus Authorised Officer Veritas Finance Private Limited