Cholamandalam Invest and Finance Company Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Representative Sri Ranjeet Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary, Dept. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 512 of 2025

---

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd., a company having its Head Quarter at Chola Crest, C54-55, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, P.O. & P.S.-Guindy, Dist-Chennai, State-Tamil Nadu, one of its branches at Pinnacle Hotel, opposite Civil Court, P.O.-GPO, P.S.Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi through its authorized representative Sri Ranjeet Singh, S/o Ram Singh, R/o Bhatia Basti, Near Sai Mandir, P.O.Adityapur, P.S.- Adityapur, District-Seraikela-Kharsawan

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh

¶9

Bikram Singh son of Anirudh Singh

¶10

Neha Singh wife of Bikram Singh

¶11

Urmila Devi wife of Prafullo Singh

¶12

Anirudh Singh son of Prafullo Singh

¶13

Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are residents of Sarouni Khurd, Vtc Saruni Khurd, Silvar, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribag, District- Hazaribag

¶14

Aniran Traders through the Proprietor- Bikram Singh, resident of Chano Kesra, Landmark – Silvar Firing Range, BSF Chano Kesar, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribag, District- Hazaribag

¶15

…. … Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶17

For the Petitioner : M/s Bharat Kumar, Sparsh Kumar Rai & Rahul Sinha, Advocates For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, A.C. to A.G. Order No. 03 Dated: 18.03.2025

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag to forthwith dispose of the application dated 12.09.2024 preferred by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act, 2002”) which was registered as SARFAESI Case No. 180 of 2024 (Acknowledgement No. RCMSON24084909).

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

¶20

a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is one of the

¶21

leading non-banking financial institutions registered with RBI. It has been engaged in the business of financing for purchasing of vehicles/houses by providing financial assistance to different companies, body corporates and private individuals.

¶22

3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 is the borrower and the respondent nos. 4 to 7 are co-borrowers, who had applied for loan for the purpose of enhancement of their business to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- & Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitionercompany. The said loan was sanctioned to the said applicants on their acceptance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter dated 30.03.2022. The applicants (the private respondents), however, defaulted in repayment of loan and accordingly, the concerned accounts were classified as NonPerforming Asset (NPA) on 03.02.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner served a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 12.02.2024 through registered post to the said private respondents and the same was also published in the newspapers as per the provisions of law.

¶23

4. The private respondents having not responded to the notice served to them under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner served notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act read with rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to the private respondents through registered post as well as published the same in the daily newspapers on 23.06.2024. Despite that, the private respondents did not co-operate the petitioner in taking possession of the property in question (i.e., the land appertaining to Khata No. 04, Plot No. 28, Thana No.177, Mouza- Chano, P.S.-

¶24

2 W.P.(C) No. 512 of 2025

¶25

Hazaribagh, District-Ramgarh, measuring an area of 30 decimals), which was pledged with the petitioner as equitable mortgage at the time of sanction of the loan. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 2 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 12.09.2024, which was registered as SARFAESI Case No. 180 of 2024 (Acknowledgement No. RCMSON24084909). The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2, instead of disposing of the said application expeditiously, has still kept the same pending without passing any effective order, which has compelled it to prefer the present writ petition.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Balkrishna Rama Tarle (Dead) through legal representatives and another Vs. Phoenix Arc Private Limited & Ors.” reported in (2023) 1 SCC 662 , paragraph-16 of which reads as under:

¶27

“16. The statutory obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM

¶28

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. As observed and held by this Court in NKGSB Coop Bank Ltd. V. Subir Chakravarty, the aforesaid act is a ministerial act. It cannot brook delay. Time is of the essence and this is the spirit of the special enactment.”

¶29

3 W.P.(C) No. 512 of 2025

¶30

6. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 is under statutory obligation to assist the petitioner-company i.e., the secured creditor in taking possession of the security assets. The exercise under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was to be completed by the respondent no. 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of the application which, in the given circumstance, could not have exceeded the period of 60 days in aggregate. Keeping the said proceeding pending for unlimited period frustrates the provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Under the said circumstance, the respondent no. 2 may be directed to conclude the proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 without any further delay.

¶31

7. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2, submits that there is no dispute with respect to the mandate of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and hence, if the proceeding in question has not yet been concluded by the respondent no. 2, the same will be concluded without further delay.

¶32

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶33

“Balkrishna Rama Tarle” (supra) , the respondent no. 2 is directed to expedite the proceeding in question and to conclude the same as soon as possible and not beyond the period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶34

9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid direction.

¶35

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶36

Ritesh/

¶37

4 W.P.(C) No. 512 of 2025

Cholamandalam Invest and Finance Company Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Representative Sri Ranjeet Singh v. the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary, Dept. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam Invest and Finance Company Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Representative Sri Ranjeet Singh v. the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary, Dept. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

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

Nirmal Kachhap Alias Nirmal Munda Vs State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Land and Revenue Department

Anita Rampal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Ajmani Alias Sunil Ajmani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary, Land and Reforms Department

Ravindra Kumar Rao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand