SANTOSH RAGHAV Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the notice (anneuxre-P/2) which was pasted on the premises in question. The notice reads as under:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 14 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) where it is clearly stated that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate may assist a secured creditor in taking possession of a secured asset provided the secured asset is within the jurisdiction of said Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate. In the present case, it is obvious that the notice has purportedly been issued by the court receiver appointed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by a purported order dated 14.2.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite best efforts, he has not been able to get the copy of the order dated 14.2.2003.

(3.) Be that as it may, the facts are very clear. The property in question that is the secured asset which is sought to be taken possession of is an immovable property situated in plot No.69, Block A, Sector No.56, NOIDA, U.P. which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Ex facie the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi even if he did pass the order dated 14.2.2003, could not have done so in terms of the express provisions of Section 14 of the said Act. In this view of the matter the said notice is quashed.