Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 462 - HC - Companies LawConstitutional validity of Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The petitioners availed of loan facility from respondent No.2-Bank and failed to repay the loan amount - Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and called upon the petitioners to make good the payment failing which the Bank would proceed to take over the possession of the secured assets under Section 13(4) - The petitioners were aggrieved by the measures taken by the Bank. In their appeal order under section 17, no interim relief in favour of the petitioners was granted by DRT, Ahmedabad - The appeal thereagainst was still pending before the DRT, Mumbai - In the meantime, the Bank preferred an application under section 14 before the District Magistrate, Surat, requesting to provide for police protection for the purpose of taking over of the actual possession of the secured assets - District Magistrate, Surat directed the Police Inspector of the concerned Police Station to provide for necessary assistance for the purpose of taking over of the possession of the secured assets - petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of Section 14 of the Act on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Held that:- Fact that a right of appeal is not available against the order passed under Section 14 of the Act does not render the said provision unconstitutional and void as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India on the ground of arbitrariness and reasonableness. - Section 14 of the Act is a valid piece of legislation and is declared intra vires - The District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, is bound to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets and is not empowered to decide the question of legality and propriety of any of the actions taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act. Though Section 14 of the Act provides that no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate done in pursuance of Section 14 shall be called in question in any Court or before any authority, the right of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away, but that power can be exercised only in cases where the concerned Magistrate or the Commissioner, as the case may be, exceeds his power or refuses to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him under the law. - Absence of an appeal does not necessarily render the legislation unreasonable as only because no appeal is provided under the Act against the order passed under Section 14 of the Act will not render Section 14 ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India. - Decided against Appellants.
|