Dismissed

M/s New Man Mission Association, v. Syndicate Bank

Telangana HC7 Mar 2012WP/5241/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to order possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court rejected the claim of lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition, noting the existence of an alternative remedy via the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and the miscellaneous application were dismissed with no order as to costs.

M/s New Man Mission Association, Vs Syndicate Bank — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.5241 OF 2012

¶4

Date:07.03.2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s.New Man Mission Association, Jagapathinagaram, Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District, represented By its Secretary Petitioner And

¶7

Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Mogalrajupuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District, represented by its Regional Manager and another .. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.5241 OF 2012

¶10

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶11

The petitioner is running a Junior College in Jagapathinagaram, Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District. As the petitioner could not pay the loan instalments, the first respondent - bank initiated action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Act). After issuing possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, the second respondent approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Rajahmundry, for taking possession of the college under Section 14 of the Act.

¶12

By an order, dated 02.01.2012, the learned CJM appointed an advocate commissioner to take possession and hand over the same to the authorised person of the bank. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the order of the CJM.

¶13

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

It is vehemently contended that under Section 14 of the Act, it is only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate to pass an order for taking possession and handing over the same to the secured creditor and that the CJM has no such jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act. Section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the extent relevant reads as under.

¶15

Section 3: Construction of references.- (1) In this Code,(a) any reference, without any qualifying words, to a

¶16

Magistrate shall be construed, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶17

(i) in relation to an area outside a metropolitan area, as a reference to a judicial Magistrate;

¶18

(ii) in relation to a metropolitan area, as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate;

¶19

(b) any reference to a Magistrate of the second class shall, in relation to an area outside a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to a Judicial Magistrate of the second class, and, in relation to a Metropolitan area, as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate;

¶20

(c) any reference to a Magistrate of the first class shall,(i) in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area;

¶21

(ii) in relation to any other area, be construed as a reference to a Judicial Magistrate of the first

¶22

class exercising jurisdiction in that area;

¶23

(d) any reference to the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed a s a reference to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area.

¶24

(2) In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to the Court of a Judicial Magistrate shall, in relation to a Metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for that area.

¶25

A plain reading of Section 3(1)(d) read with 3(2) makes it very clear that the CJM is always construed as the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore, the CJM, Rajahmundry, does not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction. In so far as the other grievance, if any, is concerned, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter.

¶26

The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is dismissed. The miscellaneous application filed in the writ petition also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶28

(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶29

07.03.2012 KH

M/s New Man Mission Association, v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s New Man Mission Association, v. Syndicate Bank

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

Palipati Devasahayam Vs The Andhra Bank

Nimmala Sujatha, Vs The Secretary

K. Ravinder Rao Vs The Honble Upa Lokayukta

M/s.Jsr Real Estate, rep.by its M.D. Sri.J.Narayana, Vs The Authorized Officer

Smt. v. Visalakshi, Vs The Special Court under a.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act)

K.Sahaja Rao, Vs The State Bank of India