Indian Bank, Represented through Its Chief Manager, Mr. Suresh Chandra Chauhan Vs State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.656 of 2025

Indian Bank (formerly Allahabad Bank), Stressed Asset Management Branch, Lalpur, Ranchi, represented through its Chief Manager, Mr. Suresh Chandra Chauhan.

¶4

.......... Petitioner.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Jharkhand

¶7

District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. .......... Respondents.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶10

----For the Petitioner : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the State : A.C. to AAG-V ----- Order No.04 Date: 02.04.2025

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to forthwith pass a final order on the petitioner’s application filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as “the SARFAESI Act, 2002”).

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Bank is a body corporate, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and a banking company within the meaning of Banking Regulations Act, 1949.

¶13

It is further submitted that an equitable mortgage was created on immovable property being all the part and parcel of the property (land & building), situated at Harmu Road, Upper Bazar, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, Ranchi, Thana no.205, District Ranchi, being portion of Municipal Holding Nos.598 & 598A, Ward No.II (Old), Sheet No.4 out of Ranchi Municipal Survey, plot no.914 (portion of sub-plot nos.914A, 914A-1 & 914A-2), Khgata no.217, Jamabandi No.880,

¶14

measuring an area of 6 Kathas, 12 Chhatak, 90 sq. ft., having Chhaparbandi right vide Sale Deed no.15285/13493 dated 30^th July, 2009. A proceeding was initiated by the petitioner-Bank by issuing statutory demand notice dated 27^th February, 2023 under Section 13(2) of the of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thereafter, possession notice was also issued by the petitioner-Bank on 28^th June, 2023. Since the actual physical possession of the property was not handed over to the petitioner, it made an application on 7^th July, 2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the respondent no.2 for securing actual physical possession of the same. However, no effective step has been taken in this regard by the said respondent, which has compelled the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition. 4. 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 and Others reported

¶15

in (2023) 1 SCC 662 , paragraph-16 of which reads as under:

¶16

“16. 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 -3- W.P. (C) No.5643 of 2024 Neutral Citation 2024:JHHC:38763 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.”

¶17

It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 is under statutory obligation to assist the petitioner-Bank i.e. the secured creditor in

¶18

-2- W.P.(C) No.656 of 2025

¶19

taking possession of the concerned property. 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.

¶20

Learned A.C. to A.A.G.-V appearing on behalf of the respondents 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.

¶21

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 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.

¶22

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

¶23

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶24

Sanjay/

¶25

-3-

¶26

W.P.(C) No.656 of 2025

Indian Bank, Represented through Its Chief Manager, Mr. Suresh Chandra Chauhan v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank, Represented through Its Chief Manager, Mr. Suresh Chandra Chauhan v. State of Jharkhand

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

Kishan Keot Alias Teta Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prema Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fazle Karim Alias MD Fazale Karim Alias Fazel Karim Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pramod Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Ranchi

Mahadeo Prasad Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yadunandan Deo Vs the State of Jharkhand