Allowed

H.P.Jinnappa v. Indian Bank

Madras HC4 Jan 2017CRL RC/153/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged an order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate granting relief under the SARFAESI Act. Relying on a Full Bench judgment, the Court held that Chief Judicial Magistrates lack power; only District Magistrates should be approached. The revision was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in C.M.P.No.1358 of 2010 dated 19.10.2010 was set aside.

H.P.Jinnappa Vs Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Criminal Revision No.153 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

H.P.Jinnappa ..Petitioner/ Bonafide Purchaser Vs Indian Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, rep. by Chief Manager & Authorised Officer, K.Chandra Reddy, P.B.No.3452, W-100, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 40 .. Respondent/Petitioner Prayer:This Criminal revision is filed under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, in C.M.P.No.1358 of 2010 dated 19.10.2010. For petitioner : Mr.V.Premkumar For respondent : Mr. K.Chandu Suranjan

¶7

O R D E R Challenging the order passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Chengalpet, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the present revision has been filed.

¶8

The petitioner claims to be a purchaser of the property in Plot Nos.72 and 73, Vemba Avenue, Sitalapakkam village, Chennai from one Dharmaprakash J.Kumar, under a valid sale deed dated 21.07.1999. Thereafter, he had constructed a

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

house and residing therein. Subsequently, he came to know that his vendor had mortgaged the property with the respondent bank and obtained a loan, but committed default. In the above circumstances, the respondent bank already filed a civil suit against the vendor and obtained a preliminary decree. Once again the respondent bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, which was also challenged and pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai. That being the position, the respondent bank filed a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate also allowed the application by an order dated 19.10.2010. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the revision is squarely covered by the full bench judgment of this Court in a case reported in “ Mr.K.Arockiyaraj vs/ The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar in W.P.Nos.11078 of 2011, 7155 of 2012 and 4525, 9833 of 2013 ,in which, it has been held that only the District Magistrate and Chief Judicial Magistrates, as the case may be, has been vested with powers to pass orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the relevant portion of the full bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.11078 of 2011, 7155 of 2012 and 4525, 9833 of 2013 , is held as follows:

¶12

“From the perusal of the above judgments as well as the statutory provisions contained in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002, in its independent existence, we are of the firm view that Section 14 does not contemplate the secured creditors to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrates for assistance to secure their assets and secured creditors can approach the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Metropolitan areas and in non-metropolitan areas, the secured creditors has to approach the District Magistrate and not the Chief Judicial Magistrate”.

¶13

In view of the above Full Bench Judgment, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has no power to entertain the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet in C.M.P.No.1358 of 2010 dated 19.10.2010, is set aside, however, liberty is given to the respondent to approach concerned court, if so advised. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrp
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chengalpet.
2.The Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.V.Premkumar Advocate sr 513
+1 cc to Mr.Chandu Suranjan Advocate sr 553

¶17

Crl.R.C.No.153 of 2011 vgI(co) aa04/07/2017

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

H.P.Jinnappa v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.P.Jinnappa v. Indian Bank

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

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu Fisheries Vs S.Senthil Kumar

L.Pounraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Jaganathan Vs the Inspector of Police

Nainan Vs State Rep by

K.K.Mani Vs Aditya Exports

Chinnasamy Vs the Inspector of Police