The Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order for possession of secured property. It held the Deputy Collector's involvement was legal and the Magistrate did not exceed jurisdiction.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-01-2015
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P.No.33868 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
S.Lalitha W/o.K.Vijaya Raghavan No.57 Gnanapragasam Street Karaikal-609 602. Petitioner Vs 1 District Collector Cum District Magistrate Karaikal District Karaikal. 2 ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. Lakshmi Arade 2nd Floor A-10 11th Cross Thillai Nagar Main Road Trichy-620 018 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory 3 M/s.Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. No.715C 7th Floor Spencer Plaza Phase II No.769 Anna Salai Chennai-2 Rep. by its Authorised Officer. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.10.2014 made in No.4513/CK/ A3/2014 in C.M.P.No.02 of 2014 on the file of the District Collector cum District Magistrate Karaikal District Karaikal the first respondent herein and quash the same.
For appellants Mr. R. Sugumaran For respondents Mr. P.S. Shivashanmugha Sundaram, SplG.P. For R1 Mr. V. Jayachandran for R3
ORDER (Order of the Court is made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,J.)
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27-10-2014 passed by the District Collector cum District Magistrate in exercise
of his power under provisions of Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act 2002”).
Act 2002, for making the payment. The petitioner was thereafter, further granted an opportunity for settlement of the loan by communication dated 28-04-2011, and the petitioner had full information with regard to the auction of the property and also about taking cognizance of the matter by the District Magistrate on an application made by the secured creditor. The petitioner has not taken any steps even to satisfy by depositing at least a part of the payment. The contention that the direction to the Deputy Collector to take over possession of the property in question is contrary to the provisions of law, is necessarily to be rejected as the process of securing possession of the property in question, has to be done either by an authority or Advocate Commissioner and as such, there is no illegality. In respect of the second contention, i.e., the District Magistrate exercising greater restraint, there is no material to prove that the District Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Magistrate's delegation of possession powers to the Deputy Collector was contrary to law.
Whether the District Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering possession recovery.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Lalitha
District Collector Cum District Magistrate Karaikal
ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd.
M/s.Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.
Satish K. Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
