9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave challenged the order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Magistrate (Collector), Jaipur, i.e. the respondent No.1 in the application being No.279/2009 filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. It appears that the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 17 of the said Act, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Harshad Goverdhandas Sondagar Versus International Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, (2014) 6 SCC 1. The petitioners, therefore, have filed the present petition again challenging the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 14 of the said Act. 3. It is sought to be submitted by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. At the outset, it is required to be stated that admittedly the petitioners have not paid any amount to the respondent-Bank towards the outstanding dues which are more than Rs. 40 lacs since 2007. It is further required to be noted that the petitioners have also not chosen to challenge the proceedings under Section 13, more particularly the notice given to them under Section 13 (2) of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent No.2-Bank. As transpiring from the impugned order dated 10.11.2009, the respondent No.1 District Magistrate has allowed the application of the respondent No.2 under Section 14 and directed the respondent No.2 to recover the possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioners with the help of Police, which is sufficient compliance of Section 14 of the said Act. The Court therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
