Dismissed

M/s Sls Power Corporation ltd., v. M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited

DRT10 Jan 2024SA/306/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application contesting recovery proceedings. It held that leasehold rights were validly mortgaged and the Principal Senior Civil Judge had jurisdiction to pass orders under the SARFAESI Act, rejecting claims regarding lack of notice or tribal area restrictions.

What did the court decide?

The Security Application was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

M/s Sls Power Corporation ltd., versus M/s. Indian Renewable… — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^,I OTH DAY OF JANUARY.2C.24

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.306,/2c.23

¶5

M/s. SLS^power Corporation Ltd., Regd. Oflice: Sy.No. 207lA2, Ashok Nagar, B-3, Navalak Gardens, Nellore - S24OO2, Andhra pradesh. Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Sri VemuriChenchaiih."

¶6

SriVemuriChenchaiah, S/o..Subbaiah, aged about 72 yrs., Gender: Male, Sy.No.2 02l A2, Ashok Nagar, B_3, Navaiak Gardens, Nellore - S24OO2, Andhra pradesh.

¶7

Applicants.

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Indian Renewable Energu Developmenr Agency Limitea] Hyderabad Branch, #S_g_21, Ground Floor, Jeevan prakash (LIC Building), Opp. Secrerariar, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 5OO 063. I"p^{ny its AuthorizedOfficer,} Mr. A. Chandrashekhar.

¶10

Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicants

¶12

Counsel for the Respond.ent

¶13

Mr. A.S. Nanjundappa. Mr. Shabheer Ahmed,.

¶14

.:ORDERi

¶15

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the Order dt. 18.07,2e25, passed by the Principal Senior Civil J having any jurisdiction and also d Notice dt.13.12.2020, issued u/s.13(2) I Actf e Respondent.

¶16

)07.4 -^'.!. j.

¶17

sA 306/2023

¶18

The averments made in the application, in brief, are as under,_

¶19

The Applicant No. 1 is engaged in generating Hydel Electricity Power and the erstwhile Government of Andhra pradesh has issued lease hold rights to the Applicant No.l in respect of 16 acres of Godavari River Lands for establishing 24 MV Hydel Power Project for generating electricity, for a period of 30 years commencing from lZ .O7 .200g and the Lease Deed is registered before the SRO, Bhadrachalam, on 22.01.2OO9. The 1st Applicant allegedly obtained financial assistance from the Respondent for establishing 24 MW hydel power generation unit on the Godavari at Dummagudem Village, Bhadrachalam Taluk, Kothagudem District.

¶20

ii) The Respondent by wrongly invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, issued Demand Notice dt.31.12.2O2O,u/s.13(2) of the said Act, when the loan account of the lst Applicant was not NPA. The 1st Applicant raised objections to the said notice and the Respondent issued a belated reply. Subsequently, the Respondent issued a notice dt.03. O3.2O23 u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, which is also not legal. Thereafter, the Respondent approached the principal Sr. Civil Judgee, Kothagudem, by filing an application u/s.14 of the sARFAESI Act, for taking physical possession of the schedule propertlr and the said court has no jurisdiction, power and authority. However, necessary orders were passed by the principal Sr. Civil Judge, Kothagudem, in Crl.M.p.No.3l2023 on 18.02.2023, basing on the false affidavit sworn Officer of the Respondent.

¶21

So, the Applican bre the l^st Class Judicial

¶22

Magistrate, B

¶23

: 10,lllt mru x
fu+*'

¶24

sA 306/2023

¶25

iii) The various steps initiated by the Respondent under the SARFAESI Act are liable to be set-aside on the following grounds:-

¶26

a) The Respondent has filed a false affidavit alleging that the Applicant No. t has created security interest over the property in dispute. But, no securit5r interest is created by Applicant No.1 in favour ofthe Respondent;

¶27

b) In the affidavit filed by the Respondent before the principal Sr. Civil Judge, Kothagudem, it is mentioned that no tenant is residing in the property in dispute but, Applicant No. I is a bonallde, valid and legitimate tenant;

¶28

c) 16 acres of Godavari River lands are Agency Tracts in the Tribal area of Bhadrachalam Taluk and so the principal Sr. Civil Judge or Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kothagudem, is not having jurisdiction to entertain any application u/ s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act;

¶29

d) The petition and affidavit filed by the Respondent before the

¶30

Principal Sr. Civil Judge are in violation of Sec.26D of the SARFAESI Act;

¶31

e) The Respondent has no jurisdiction or power or authority to invoke SARFAESI Act and issue Demand Notice u/s. 13(2) in the absence of securit5r agreement/mortgage deed executed by the Applicants and Respondent;

¶32

f) There is no default as on 31.03.2O15 in the loan account
of Applican
iF&
-: ::t
The
c) f rhE Appli No. 1 is not NpA as on
31.03
024
}}
J.,

¶33

sA 306/2023

¶34

h) The Respondent has violated various provisions of Sec.14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, by making false averments in the affidavit filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate;

¶35

i) The Respondent has not issued possession Notice u/r.g(1) of the security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2; and so without issuing notice u/r.8(1), the Respondent is barred from proceeding u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act;

¶36

i) Legal and valid hypothecation is not created in favour of the Respondent;

¶37

k) The entry made in the books of Respondent cannot be treated as mortgage deed executed by the Applicants;

¶38

iu) Hence, the SA.

¶39

The Respondent filed its Reply statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions of the Respondent, in brief, are as under:_

¶40

0 The Respondent is a secured creditor of Applicant No.1 and has extended credit facilities of Rs.15i.51 crores and as Applicant No.1 failed to repay its dues, the loan account of Applicant No.1 was classified as NpA on 31.03.2015. so, the Respondent issued notices to the Applicants u/s. t3(2) & 1s(4) of the SARFAESI Act in order to recover the outstanding debt.

¶41

ii) on 22.o1.2oo9, the erstwhile Government of Andhra pradesh and Applicant No.1 executed a Lease Deed for leasing of the project site to Applicant No.l for a period of 30_ years. Thereafter, on 06.03.2009, one Srj Director of Applicant No.1

¶42

executed a .king proposing to mortgage

¶43

the land ad pu1';-;$i6 J'tc Branch Anicut of Godavari

¶44

River situa in Sy.No.2'of Dumm emVillagte and Mandal,

¶45

sA 305/2023

¶46

Bhadrachalm Taluk, Bhadadri, Kothagudem District, Telangana State by depositing the title deeds related to the said property. The said lease hold property was mortgaged with the Respondent since para (4) of the Lease Deed dt.22.or.200g categorically permits lessee i.e., the secured Applicant to mortgage iheir right, title and interest in the demised land, without the prior approval of the Lessors in favour of the Respondent and the said Respondent was allowed to render financial assistance to the Lessee and authorized to enforce its securities, including the demised land for recovering their dues from the Lessee. On 06.03.2009, a Memorandum of Entry (MoE) was executed which records that all the documents pertaining to the secured asset were deposited by Applicants with the Respondent including the Lease Agreement d,t.22.O1.2009. Therefore, effectively, it is the leasehold right of secured asset which were mortgaged by the Applicants in favour of the Respondent since the Applicant No.1 holds the lease from erstwhile Government of Andhra pradesh.

¶47

iii) Due to the defaults committed by Applicant No. l, the loan account of Applicant No. 1 was classilied as NpA and thereafter Respondent issued a Demand Notice dt.3l.1 2.2O2O u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, to Applicant No.1. Applicant No. I submitted objections to the said Demand Notice on 26.02.2021, which was received by the Respondent on Ol.O3.2O2l and the Respondent issued its reply to the said objections on 16.03.2021. Thereafter, the Respondent issued notice dt.O3. O3.2O23 u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Advocate of Applicant No. I issued reply to the said notice with multiple objections, to rvhich a suitable reply was issued by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent approached the C te, Bhadadri, Kothagudem District and fil rl.M.P.No.3/2023 u/s. 14 of phys on of the schedule property appoint an 'li, )nlt te Commissioner, who 5

¶48

sA 305/2023

¶49

would assist the Authorized Officer of the Respondent in taking possession of the said property. The said application was allowed vide order dt.lg.O7 .2023 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Thereafter, the Advocate commissioner issued notice to the Applicants for execution of Commissioner warrant but, the Applicants have not vacated the schedule property and handed over the premises to the Advocate Commissioner.

¶50

iu) The contention of the Applicants that the schedule property is not mortgaged in favour of Respondent is false as the leasehold rights of the schedule propertSr are mortgaged by the Applicants in favour of the Respondent. Even though the ownership of the schedule property is vested with the erstwhile Government of Andhra^pradesh, it is clarified that the Respondent is not selling the schedule properties through auction and instead, the leasehold rights of the schedule property, which has been mortgaged with the Respondent, alone will be auctioned. No farse statement was made by the Authorized Officer of the Respondent in the aflidavit filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kothagudem. In the present case, borrower, mortgagor and the lessee are one and the same and borrower itself has mortgaged the leasehold rights. So, the provisions of the Transfer of propert5r Act, are not applicable to the instance case. The provisions of Sec.35 of the SARFAESI Act, have overriding effect over the Andhra^pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations Act, 1959 and the provisions of the A.p. Civil Courts Act, l9Z2 are also not appricabre to the instant case as same is also prior to the enactment of the SARFAESI Act.

¶51

v) The Principal Sr. Civil Bhadradri, Kothagudem was appointed as Chief Bhadradri, Kothamgudem District. So, the ai'.r; ++i." iiaiis ;: ES; is having authority

¶52

to pass order it4 of thelslnr,aBJ The securit5r interest 'r 1I i'I 1021 6 i.i.-.i ,.

¶53

sA 306/2023

¶54

created in favour of the Respondent by the Applicants is valid and enforceable. The mortgage of leasehold rights over the schedule property created by Applicant No. 1 in favour of Respondent by way of deposit of title deeds constitute valid mortgage since it is weil established principle that the ownership rights cannot be the only subject matter of a valid mortgage. The Respondent has not violated the provisions of Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, in disclosing various facts in the affidavit filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The securit5r interest created by the Applicants has been registered by the Respondent and there is no violation of Sec.26D of the SARFAESI Act. The Memorandum of Entry (MoE) was executed to record the deposit of title deeds pertaining to the secured asset in favour of the Respondent and the said document does not create equitable mortgage and hence there is no necessity for the said document to be signed by Applicants. The Declaration and Undertaking dt.06.03.2OO9 which bears the signature of the Director of Applicant No. l, is the instrument by which mortgage has been created on the secured assets in favour of the Respondent, wherein the Applicant agreed to deposit the title deeds of the secured assets.

¶55

vi) The reliefs prayed by the Applicants in the present SA are totally

¶56

misconceived and the Applicants have not approached this

¶57

Tribunal with clean hands. Hence, the SA is liable to be

¶58

dismissed.

¶59

Heard arguments.

¶60

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶61

Whether the m respect of of leasehold rights in fauour of the

¶62

Respondent?

¶63

sA 306/2023

¶64

ii) whether the Principal sr. ciuit Jud.ge, Bhadradi, Kothagud.em is hauing jurisdiction to pass orders u/ s. 14 of the 1ARFABSi Act?

¶65

iii) Whether the Applicants are entitled to claim ang reliefs in the present Secuitization Application?

¶66

iu) To what relieJ?

¶67

Potnt No.(l):-

¶68

During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Applicants and Ld' Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶69

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants have established 24 Mv Hyder power project at Dummagudem village, Bhadrachalam Taluk, Kothagudem District on the land owned by the Erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is also not disputed that originally the Government of Andhra pradesh has leased out 16 acres of Godavari Rivers lands to the Applicants for establishing the said Hydel^power project. Even though the Applicants have not specifically admitted about the availing of the loan facilities from the Respondent, but as per the various documents fired by the Respondent, it is clear that the Applicants haveavailed credit facilities from the Respondent for establishing Hydel power project in the application schedule property.

¶70

¶71

As the Applicants are contending that they have not created mortgage in respect of the lease hold rights over the application schedule property, the initial burden lies on the Respondent to establish the said fact. In order to establish. the said fact, the Respondent has filed us documents. The relevant documents are to blishing the liability of the Applicants. As copy nt dt.06.01.2009 rueo Dy rne xespondent, it is verv clear. at the Applicant No.l executed the saip,:Lorr1 ng...;j#lr, tX r of the Respondent for . ['. r'

¶72

sA 306/2023

¶73

availing the loan for establishing 24 MV Hydel power project at Dummagudem Village, Bhadrachalam Taluk, Kothagudem District. In Page No.80 of the said Agreement, it is clearly mentioned that the lstApplicant will create first charge by way of mortgage by depositing the title deeds in favour of the Respondent in respect of the immovable properties on which, the Hydel power project is to be set up on the Godavari River lands in Dummagudem Village, Bhadrachalam Taluk, Kothagudem District. The Respondent has filed copy of the Lease Deed dt.22.O1.2OOg executed by the erstwhile Government of Andhra pradesh in favour of the l "t Applicant. As per the terms of the said Lease Deed, it is clear that the erstwhile Government of Andhrapradesh leased out 16 acres of land at the Branch Anicut of Godavari River situated in Sy.No.2 of Dummagudem Village and Mandal, BhadrachalamTaluk, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District to the Applicant No. I herein for the purpose of establishment of Hyder power project. As per the terms of the said Lease Deed, the project site was leased out for a period of 30 years commencing from 16. 10.200g.. In the said Lease Deed, it is specifically mentioned that the Applicant No. 1 shall have the right to mortgage the project rand/schedule property in favour of the Respondentin order to establish the Hydel power project, without prior approval of the lessor, Government of Andhra pradesh and further the Respondent has a right to recover its dues by selling the leasehoid rights over the secured asset. So as per the terms of the said agreement, it is quite crear that prior to the execution of the said Lease Deed, the Respondent agreed to provide finance to the l "tAppricant for estabrishing the Hydel power project on the land proposed to be taken on lease from the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh. So, the said clause in the lease deed enables the 1st Applicant herein to (leasehold rights in respect of the s ch ed u I e p, p r rfi tr/p.{l " v,"vcy{r rstqlausr(rftfgNqs Hydel power project. So, the very contentiorf'of the aBpti"..rt. Ph\ the , r..,^ l r st Applicanta--r;^^-+ is :^ only - , a tenant of the dJpplicatiof *hld.qlf,p-Frjp and so it is not entitled to

¶74

sA 306/2023

¶75

create any mortgage in favour of the Respondent in respect of the said project land is not tenable. What is mortgaged in favour of the Respondent herein is only the leasehold rights of the lstApplicant in respect of the SA schedule property. By taking physical possession of the application schedule propert5r, the Respondent is expected to auction the leasehold rights of the schedule property only as the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh is the actual owner of the schedule property.

¶76

¶77

¶78

The other contentions of the Applicants is that the Applicants have not created any security in favour of the Respondent in respect of the schedule property and in the absence of creation of any securitSr in respect of the application schedule property, the Respondent is not entitled to proceed against the schedule property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶79

In order to establish that the 1st Applicant has created mortgage in respect of the schedule property by deposit of titre deeds, the Respondent filed Declaration and Undertaking both dt.06.03. 2oog executed by the lstApplicant in favour of the Respondent. In the saiddocuments, it is specificaly mentioned by the Appricants that they have taken lease of the apprication schedure property for establishing Hyder power project and they proposed to mortgage the application schedure property in favour of the Respondent for availing loan facilities. so, as per the said documents executed by the Applicants, it is clear that the Applicants have deposited their title deeds relating to the apprication schedule property in favour of the Respondent for creation of security for the loan facilities availed by them from the Respondent. In fact, in the Memorandum of Entry(MoE) filed uvrffit is clearry mentioned that r'-l .:. mortgage was urr.&d, "ln ''r€gpe3F'+{t. schedule property on specific mention that 06.03.2009 and ;itr itie 1st Seh.edrt., tt*\i" the original rty is vested with the

¶80

sA 305/2023

¶81

erstwhile Government of Andhra pradesh and the lease hord rights of the schedule property are mortgaged with the Respondent. So, the said document clearry evidences the fact that the Applicants have deposited their original tittle deeds with the Respondent for creation of equitable mortgage in respect of the application schedule property. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that the creation of mortgage is only in respect of lease hold rights possessed by the Applicants in respect of the schedule property. So, considering all the circumstances, I hold that the Applicants have validly created mortgage in respect of the lease hord rights over of the schedule property in favour of the Respondent for availing roan facilities from the Respondent.

¶82

10' The Respondent in order to establish that the security offered by the Applicants in respect of the schedule property is registered with central Registry of Securitisation and Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India i.e. cERSAI, has filed certificate issued by the CERSAI evidencing the creation of equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule property by the Applicant No. 1, in compliance of Section 26(Dl of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. So the contention of the Applicants that the Respondent has not followed the provisions of Section 26(D) of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 is not tenable. Further, it is pertinent to note that the mortgage in respect of the schedule property created by the 1"t Applicant in favour of the Respondent has been registered with Registrar of Companies, (RoC) as evidenced by the endorsement given by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to the effect that the schedule property was mortgaged in favour of the Respondent herein for securing the loan facilities of Rs. ls l .51 crores. So, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the

Point No.2:

P
-^,r ,+

sA 306/2023

Ld. Counsel for the Applicants argued that principle Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri, Kothagudem is not having jurisdiction to pass orders u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and without issuing any notice u/r 8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the

¶87

Respondent is not expected to initiate proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 through the concerned cJM. It is further argued that the schedule property is situated in agency tracts of Tribal areas of Bhadrachalm Taluk and that under the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations Act, 1959, only agency courts have got jurisdiction in Bhadrachalam Taluk. It is further argued that the AdvocateCommissioner warrant was issued by the Principle Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri, Kothagudem who is not having jurisdiction to issue such warrant in respect of the schedule property.

¶88

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri, Kothagudem is designated as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kothagudem and so he is having power and authority to pass orders in respect of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2.II is further argued that as per Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 shall have effect,not withstandinganything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. So, the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are having over_riding effect to proceed in respect of the schedule property even if it is situated in the Agency area. It is also submitted that the Respondent is entitled to proceed straightaway under section 14 of the SARFAEST Act,2oo2 for taking possession of the ule property even without taking steps under nute s ot thd'ilrtea, support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for ,'.Respondent upon the judgement ofHon'ble of Inia.'in the of Standard Chartered tt

¶89

sA 306/2023

¶90

Bank Vs. Noble Kumar reported in (2013) 9 SCC 620 which is as follows:

¶91

36 (i) TLe first method woutd" be uhere the secured creditor giues tLte requisite notice und.er Rule B(2) and where he d.oes not meet with any resistance. In that case, the autharized olficer will proceed to take steps as stipulated und.er Rtle g(2) onuards to take possessron and thereafter for sale of the seanred assets ,o realize tLe amounts that are claimed. bg the secured creditor.

¶92

36 (ii) The second situation ,-tirl aise uhere tLe seanred creditor meets with resistance from tLe borrower after the notice under Rule g(2) is giuen. In that case he will take recourse to the mechanism prouid.ed under Section 14 of the Act uiz. making application to the Magistrate. The Magistrate will secuitize the apprication as prouid.ed. in section 14, and. th.en if satisfted, appoint an offi.cer subordinate to him as prouid ed under section 14(1-A) to take possessron of the assets and. doanments. For that purpose the Magi.strate mag authoise the officer concemed to use such force as mag be necessary. After the possesslon is taken the assets and. d.oqtments uiU be

¶93

foru.tarded to the secured. creditor.

¶94

36 (iii) Thethird. situation witt be one uhere th.e seanred cred.itor approacLres tlrc Magistrateconcemed" directlg und.er Section 14 of the Act. The Magistrate will thereafier seanritize the application as prouided. in Section 14 and. tLrcn if satisfied, authorise a subord.inate offrcer to fake possessi on of the assets and doan ments and. foruuard them to the secured. creditor as under clause 36.2

¶95

':o.o)

¶96

lJ. In this connection, cant replied upon the judgement of K4rnatil<e trlqh in the case of K.R. ,.

¶97

sA306/2023

¶98

Krishnegowda&Anr vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank reported in I (2013) BC (DB) which is as follows:

¶99

15(a) Therefore the issuance of notice in terms of Rure B of the rures is a marudatory requirement hauing regard. to the purpose of following thepincipres of naturar justice so as to preuent miscarriage of iustice and. so as to ensure fair prag in action. Issuance of notice prior to initiation of action und.er sub-section (4) of section J3 is thus a mand.atoryprocessualrequirement, the non-obseruance of which u,tould. inualid.ate the exercise of powe, The taking o/ posses sion of a secltred" asset of a borrower und.er sub-section ft) of section 13 is a drastic measure and the exercise of such a power wourd. d.efinitetg uisit the borrower with ciuil consequences. In Mohinder singh Gill vs. The crief Erection commissioner, AIR 1g7g c gsl, , the supreme court has opined. that ciuil consequences wourd. couer not onlg ciuil liberties and. personar ights of a person but arso materiar depiuations as weil as ight to property. Therefore we haue herd that the issuance of notices in terms of Rute g of the Ru/es ls a necessary requirement pior to takingpossessfon. Though Rule I speaks of sale of immouable seanres assets, euen if euenfuailg after taking possession of the seanred. asse/s are not sold.

¶100

However in the circumstances of the case, I hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, as relied on by the Ld. counsel for the Respondent as stated supra, is binding on this Tribunar. so, the contention of the Applicants to the effect that the Respondent is not entitled to proceed straightaway for taking physical possession of the secured assets u/s_ SARFAESI Ast, 2OO2 is not tenable.

¶101

7.j,
!;,

¶102

5A 306/2023

¶103

15' As per the material documents filed by the Respondent, it is clear that the Respondent filed application u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 on the 1iie of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadradri, Kothagudem for taking physicar possession of the secured asset. As per the documents filed by the Respondent it is also clear that Principle Senior civil Judge, Kothagudem is designated as chief Judicial Magistrate, Kothagudem, Bhadrachalam District. The Government of Telangana vide its Gazette Notification dt.23.os.2o22 conferred powers on the^principle Senor Civil Judge, BhadradriKothagudem District with additional powers of chief Judicial Magistrate. So, in view of the above, it is clear that the Principle Senior civil Judge, Bhadradri, Kothagudem while exercising the powers of Chief JudicialMagistrate, Bhadradri, Kothagudem passed the order in question for appointment of Advocate commissioner and hence the contention of the Applicants that Principle Senior civil Judge, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District is not having jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 is not tenable. In view of the over_riding effect of the SARFAESI Act as mentioned in Section 35 of the Act, the Respondent is entitled to proceed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 i' respect of the schedule property even if it is situated in Agency area . Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶104

Point No.3:

¶105

In view of the above findings in points No.1&2, I hold that the SA is devoid of merits and the Applicants are not entitled to claim any

¶106

relief in the present So, this point is answered against the

¶107

Applicants an espondent.

¶108

r.$^{" "'$h} #, e$

¶109

-++ 1 ll ,l^{il lJ ,'l7l}

i:i rr-

l.'j. 15 ';.'

sA306/2023

In the result, the present Securitrzation Application is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶114

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶115

(Dctated to the P'A., transcibed bg her, corrected, signed" and. pronounced. bg me in tlLe open court on this the lAh daA of January, 2024).

¶116

sdl(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶117

,ffi<br>1 o JAr't zoz4 :
; .rl,-{r
}1}:F ,j'' ^.'Q if ,
tl::."f,, -"fi1:,f./i
:.'-a';-?-
i.try
,-*i;;ffi1

¶118

M/s Sls Power Corporation ltd., v. M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sls Power Corporation ltd., v. M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited

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

Bank of India versus M/S. Svls Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Surex Engineering Works

State Bank of India versus M/S. Madhu Infra

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Narashimha Binny Rice Mill

Bank of India versus M/S. Prius Enterprises Private Limited

Indian Bank versus M/S. Dsb Enterprises