TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.154 of 2013 as well as the order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Misc. Application No. 1 of 2013 and has further prayed for being joined as party in Misc. Application No.1 of 2013. 4. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the petition 4.1 It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner is the coowner of a property situated at B504, Sukirti Garden, Opp.Amrakadam Bungalows, Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad. It is the case of the petitioner that one Dipak @ Dushyant Ram....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d a Criminal Revision Application as provided under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the "Code") before the learned City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, which was numbered as Criminal Revision Application No.154/13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad was pleased to dismiss the said revision by the impugned order dated 10.09.2013 and has held that the revision is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 6. Mr.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court to the impugned order passed by the learned lower courts and has sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are in a way not criminal proceedings and by virtue of section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act, the same are barred. Mr. Joshi also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala reported in III (2009) BC 343 (DB). 8. Mr.Rawal, learned APP, has also submitted that revision is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and therefore submitted that the petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. It deserves to be noted that the respondent no.2 Bank has filed a detailed affidavit which has not been controverted. It clearly appears from the affidavit that what was challenged b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been also noted by the learned Magistrate that the property in question is within the jurisdiction of Satellite Police Station and therefore, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad had jurisdiction to deal with the application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and has thereafter, passed the impugned order. It appears that the petitioner has been heard by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. 10.Similarly, on perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, it clearly appears that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and has rightly come to the conclusion that the revision is not maintainable. 11.It would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be affected by the provisions made in a statute by the Legislature making the decision of the tribunal final or conclusive, we hold that subsection (1) of Section 245S of the Act, insofar as, it makes the advance ruling of the Authority binding on the applicant, in respect of the transaction and on the Commissioner and incometax authorities subordinate to him, does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution or the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge to the advance ruling of the Authority." In our view, therefore, the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate can be challenged before the High Court under Art....