STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondent and file memo of appearance in four weeks. The petitioner-Bank had instituted action for recovery of the amounts due to them from their borrowers viz., Smt. S. Kavitha and Sri. Robinson Roberts Donison. Since according to the petitioner, the amount had not been repaid, action as provided under Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the 'Act') was resorted to. In that direction, the petitioner had filed an application With the respondent as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act requiring the respondent to order for taking possession of the premises. Since the application has been returned by the respondent vide the communication dated 10-1-2013, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for direction to the respondent to consider the application.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner in that regard would refer to the amendment made to the Act as at Annexure-D to the petition to contend that the respondent would have the jurisdiction to entertain the application and pass appropriate orders on the same. At this juncture, since the respondent has only returned the application filed by the petitioner with a direction that the same be filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the said communication is not assailed, the petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh application with the respondent by referring to the provision made by way of amendment and if such application is filed by the petitioner, the respondent would thereafter look into the same and entertain the same as per law.