Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2011 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 973 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYValidity of an order passed by the sub-divisional magistrate - petitioner, an asset reconstruction company, issued a notice under section 13(2) to the third and fourth respondents to take possession of the secured asset - third respondent had taken a loan from the ICICI bank for purchasing a house - third and fourth respondents declined to hand over possession - application was filed before the second respondent, the sub-divisional magistrate, for an order under section 14 - second respondent rejected the application holding that considering the legal and factual position, the petitioner had failed to the follow proper procedure laid down under the Act – Held that:- second respondent was duty bound to act in accordance with the law laid down by the Court, which is binding upon him. In failing to do so and in virtually entering upon the merits of the entitlement of the petitioner, the second respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction. There is absolutely no dispute about the position that a notice under section 13(2) was served on the third and fourth respondents and that the secured asset is within the jurisdiction of the second respondent. Once these two facts were established, the second respondent could not have refused to pass an order under section 14. petition is to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The second respondent is to be directed to pass an order under section 14 and thereupon take steps forthwith to effectuate compliance with the order.
|