Allowed

The Manager / Authorized Officer v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC9 Dec 2024WP(MD)/28688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A housing finance company sought police protection to take possession of a secured asset under a Chief Judicial Magistrate's SARFAESI Section 14 order. The court held police had no authority to demand the borrower's loan status, quashed the impugned police proceedings and directed compliance within one week.

What did the court decide?

Impugned police proceedings quashed; respondents directed to comply with CJM orders in Cr.M.P.No.157 of 2024 within one week.

The Manager / Authorized Officer Vs The Commissioner of… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.28688 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.28688 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).No.24230 of 2024

¶7

The Manager/Authorized Officer, PNB Housing Finance Limited, Nandhini Building 3^rd Floor, No.48, Bypass Road, Madurai.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppalai Police Station, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 24.10.2024 in C.No.S1(10)/720/38090/2024 of the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to offer adequate police protection to the officers and the authorized officer of the petitioner financial institution, at the time of entering

¶13

Page 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.(MD).No.28688 of 2024

¶15

into the secured asset at Madurai North Taluk, Tiruppalai Group, Siruthur Village, Resurvey No. 296/1, area of 91 cents, U.D.R. Resurvey No.161/1, area of 0.37.0 hectares, excluding the north side sold portion of 13 cent, and the remaining 78 cents in the southern part, where a layout has been created and divided into plots, including 18 plot houses, as per the current property tax receipt, Ward No.025, G.R. Nagar, Door No.678/1, and the house and land boundaries of North side – 25 feet, south side – 33, South west side – 29-½ feet, East side – 29½, and an additional 855 -½ square feet of land, and the tiled RCC ground floor and first floor house built on the said land, namely the secured asset.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Suthakaran For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶19

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 24.10.2024.

¶20

When the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in exercise of the powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, orders for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and for police protection while taking possession of the property

¶21

Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.(MD).No.28688 of 2024

¶23

and when the Advocate Commissioner requests for police protection in accordance with the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, there is a duty cast on the Police to comply with the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶24

In the instant case, the respondents herein have chosen to address the Bank seeking for the current status of the loan account, which is not within their authority. We fail to understand as to how the current status of the loan account of the borrower is in any way connected with the duty, that is to be exercised by the Police for assisting the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property.

¶25

Since the respondents have overstepped their authority in seeking for status of the loan account of the borrower, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 on the file of the first respondent is quashed. Consequently, the respondents herein shall forthwith comply with the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Cr.M.P. No.157 of 2024 dated 21.03.2024, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.28688 of 2024

¶28

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order

¶29

as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶30

(M.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.)

¶31

09.12.2024

¶32

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶33

¶34

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶35

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppalai Police Station, Madurai.

¶36

Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.(MD).No.28688 of 2024

¶38

M.S.RAMESH,J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.28688 of 2024

¶41

09.12.2024

¶42

Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Manager / Authorized Officer v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager / Authorized Officer v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Vivekanandhan Vs The District Collector

R.Mayilsamy Vs The Director of Municipal Administration

G.Velmurugan Vs The Executive Engineer