Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 582 - HC - Indian LawsEviction from disputed property - jurisdiction of Additional District Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act - petitioner is a lessee - Held that:- It is a settled position of law that under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, acts in assistance of the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets. In the present case, the power under Section 14 has been exercised by the Additional District Magistrate by assisting the respondentBank in taking possession of the secured asset. By auctioning the disputed property, the respondentBank is no longer in possession. The possession of the disputed property is with respondent No.5. Without any challenge to the auction, the auction purchaser cannot be dispossessed of the property purchased in a public auction, the possession of which has been handed over to it, solely because the petitioner now seeks to assert its rights as a lessee at this stage. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts which would have a vital effect on the adjudication of the petition. Further, in view of the implementation of the impugned order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner cannot seek to undo the auction and its legal consequences, without even raising a challenge to it. For the aforestated reasons, this Court does not consider it necessary to deal with the submissions regarding the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.Similarly, the issue regarding the jurisdiction, or the lack of it, of the Additional District Magistrate to pass an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as contended by the petitioner, is not required to be dealt with as the said order has already been implemented. For similar reasons, it is not necessary to examine whether, or not, the petitioner is/ was a lessee of the secured asset. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, this Court considers the present petition to be devoid of merit.
|