Disposed

Bank of Baroda v. Collector and the District Magistrate, Cuttack

Orissa HC14 Sept 2020WP(C)/17139/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of Baroda filed a writ petition under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act seeking police assistance from the Collector to take physical possession of mortgaged property. The court directed the Collector to decide the pending application by a reasoned order within six weeks without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Collector and District Magistrate are directed to consider and decide the Bank's application dated 15.01.2019 as warranted in law by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks.

Bank of Baroda Vs Collector and the District Magistrate… — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.17139 of 2020

¶2

14.09.2020 The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

¶3

2. Heard Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party no.1.

¶4

3. None appears for the petitioner.

¶5

4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Bank of Baroda, represented through its Chief Manager, Zonal Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Cuttack, praying for a direction to the Collector & the District Magistrate, Cuttack-opposite party no.1 to provide police assistance to the petitioner in taking over physical possession of the secured mortgaged property of proforma opposite party no.4 as per the application dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure-1 series) submitted before him.

¶6

5. The brief facts as have been averred in this writ petition are that the proforma opposite party no.2 had availed credit facilities from the petitioner-Bank where proforma opposite party no.3 was the borrower and proforma opposite party no.4 was the

¶7

guarantor/mortgagor. Opposite party no.4 has created equitable mortgage of his personal property described in

¶8

-2-

¶9

the above said application under Annexure-1 series pending before the Collector, where the Bank is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties. To secure repayment of loan, opposite party no.4 has offered his personal immovable properties by depositing all the related title deeds. upon default in repayment of the financial assistance, the account of the borrower-opposite party no.2 has been classified as a non performing asset on 27.02.2018. Though procedures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”) have been followed, but all in vein. Thereafter, the authorized officer after serving notice under the Act, took symbolic possession over the mortgaged property on 10.01.2019, which was published in the daily newspapers. Accordingly, sales have been made and the same was confirmed after receiving the bidding amounts. It is also averred that upon failure of the borrower and Guarantors in repaying the outstanding dues demanded under the Act and after complying with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the authorized officer is entitled to take possession of the secured assets of the opposite party no.4, but he is not cooperating with the bank in taking over possession of the said mortgaged property. In terms

¶10

-3-

¶11

of Section 14 of the Act, the application dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure-1 series) has already been filed by the Bank to the Collector, Cuttack (opposite party no.1), who has to dispose of the same within 30 days and if no order is passed within the said days, he has to pass appropriate direction with reason by next 30 days. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Collector in disposing of the application with affidavit dated 15.01.2019 to appoint the designated official to assist the petitioner-bank in taking over physical possession of the secured mortgaged property of proforma opposite party no.4, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶12

6. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party no.1 submits that if such application is pending, a direction may be issued to the Collector, Cuttack-opposite party no.1 to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶13

7. Having regard to the submission made by learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and keeping in view the averments made in the writ petition, we dispose of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case by directing the Collector & the

¶14

-4-

¶15

District Magistrate, Cuttack (opposite party no.1) to consider and decide the application of the petitioner Bank dated 15.01.2019 under Annexure-1 series as warranted in law by a reasoned and speaking order, if the same is still pending consideration, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶16

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶17

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶18

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶19

Bank of Baroda v. Collector and the District Magistrate, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Collector and the District Magistrate, Cuttack

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

Amrita Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Dusmant Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Janardan Nath Vs State of Odisha

Kishore Chandra Pal Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj Dept.

Sriram Sahoo Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj Dept.

Sisir Vs Mahanadi Coal Fields