Quashed

Hemantkanta Sharma v. Central Bank of India

Rajasthan HC1 May 2019CW/4636/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged two orders dated 01.01.2019 and 09.01.2019 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act regarding the same loan. The Court held that passing a second order without recording reasons warranted quashing.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 01.01.2019 and 09.01.2019 passed by the District Magistrate were quashed and Respondents were directed to move afresh application for fresh orders within 30 days.

Hemantkanta Sharma Vs Central Bank of India — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4636/2019

¶3

Hemantkanta Sharma W/o Sh. Umesh Sharma, D/o Late Sh. Kesarimal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Near Heena Gym, Opp. Mahamandir Railway Station, Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Central Bank Of India, Through Through The Manager/authorized Officer, Geetanjali School Branch, Mahamandir, Jodhpur

¶7

District Magistrate, Court Premises, Jodhpur

¶8

Achal Singh Chouhan, Authorized Officer Central Bank Of India, Jalori Gate Branch, Jodhpur.

¶9

Arun Sharma S/o Late Sh. Kesarimal Sharma,, B/c Brahmin, R/o 1 B/95, Kuri Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶10

Smt Rupali W/o Arun Sharma, B/c Brahmin, R/o 1 B/95, Kuri Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.D. Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Kumpawat Mr. Jog Singh Bhati

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

01/05/2019

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for contesting respondents no.1 & 3 requests for final disposal of the matter.

¶17

The matter pertains to a loan being taken by respondents no.4 & 5 behind the back of petitioner no.1, who is their sister to deprive her of her rightful claim in the property.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-4636/2019]

¶20

The limited contention advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that on application under Section 14 of Securatisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the District Collector, Jodhpur passed order dated 01.1.2019 and thereafter passed another order on 09.1.2019. Counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated from record that while passing second order no reason has been recorded as to why second order was required and also no explanation has been given as to why the same property and the same loan requires second order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the application of Bank does not mention reason at the second stage as to why order dated 01.1.2019 require modification and in what circumstance fresh order was passed on 09.1.2019.

¶21

Counsel for the respondent refutes the submission and states that there was no power of review or correction and the property in-question as per them which required auction was the same in both the applications, therefore, they were left with no option except to move another application having proper address of property then available to the Bank on having found that the first order mentioned erroneous address.

¶22

This Court is of the opinion that summary powers under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 do not call for interference by this Court in normal circumstance as those are merely procedural and to enable banks and financial institutions to reclaim their dues but in this case the learned District Magistrate passed two

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-4636/2019]

¶25

orders on 01.1.2019 and on 9.1.2019 regarding the same loan on the application of the same parties. The application or the order dated 9.1.2019 do not contain any reason as to why earlier order has been reviewed/corrected/ re-framed/remade.

¶26

In light of the aforesaid submission and on finding that it is correct that one after another order has been passed without making any due reference to earlier order, we deem it appropriate to quash orders dated 01.1.2019 and 9.1.2019 passed by learned District Magistrate, Jodhpur and direct the respondent to move afresh application in which District Magistrate shall pass fresh orders within 30 days in accordance with Section 14 of the Act of 2002.

¶27

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶28

Sanjay

Hemantkanta Sharma v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemantkanta Sharma v. Central Bank of India

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Mansingh

State of Rajasthan Vs Indus Tower Ltd.

Hdb Financial Services Ltd. Vs District Magistrate, Bhilwara

Kartik Tak Vs Smt. Ankita Tak

Tikamchand and Anr. Vs the Civil Judgej.D. Merta and Ors.

M/S. C.D. Distributers Vs State of Rajasthan