Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 691 - HC - Indian LawsDenial of restoration of possession of the suit property and for other consequential reliefs - Securitization Application - Held that:- In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Sondagar (2015 (11) TMI 1315 - SUPREME COURT ) and in view of Section 17 which was prevailing prior to the amendment of 1.9.2016, the DRT was having power to restore the possession of the secured assets for and in favour of the borrower but it could not restore the possession of the secured assets to the lessee. Writ Petition allowed and respondent No.1-Bank is hereby directed to restore the possession of the suit property in favour of the petitioners forthwith and in any case within a period of fifteen days from today. After scrutinizing the entire material/documents available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent bank has taken the possession of the suit property unceremoniously and without following due process of law. The documents available on record clearly shows that the petitioners have been forcibly evicted from the suit property in question. The aforesaid discussion on facts will unequivocally lead to a positive conclusion that the concerned officers of respondent No.1 in utter violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act have indulged into taking possession of the suit property and the petitioners have been evicted from the suit property unceremoniously and forcibly and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Section 29 of the SARFAESI Act squarely applies in the present case. We therefore, grant liberty to the petitioners to file complaint as contemplated under Section 29 of the SARFAESI Act and any other law prevailing in the field against Shri. R. Ramnathan Assistant General Manager and the Authorized Officer and Shri. Sanjay Satpathi, and Law Officer of respondent No.1 Bank, for taking forcible possession who were present at the time of taking possession and any other person related with the said offence, if so advised. The directions to that effect given by the DRAT by its order dated 14.10.2014 in Para 11 are maintained to that extent. However, the further directions issued by the DRAT to the District Magistrate to consider and take cognizance if the complaint is made and to secure the presence of the said persons and dispose of the case according to law is hereby quashed and set aside. as such a direction is against the settled cannons of law. Writ Petition preferred by the respondent No.1-bank is partly allowed and while reserving the right of the petitioners to file appropriate complaint and/or to adopt proceedings as contemplated under Section 29 of the SARFAESI Act and any other law in force, the observations made by the DRAT in its order dated 14.10.2014 in Para No.11, to the extent that, “In turn the District Magistrate is directed to consider and take the cognizance if the complaint is made and to secure the presence of above person by issuing NBW and dispose of the case according to law”, are quashed and set aside. The rest of the directions issued by the DRAT in Para 11 are maintained.
|