KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Amod Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. on or around 24.6.1985 was granted financial facility by State Bank of India (SBI for short) on hypothecation of all present and future goods, book debts and movable and immovable properties. Another Amod Transformers Pvt. Ltd. was also granted financial facility by SBI in the year 1987 on hypothecation of present and future goods, book debts and other movable and immovable properties. On the request of those two Companies, SBI sanctioned and enhanced the facilities. Later on, Amod Transformers Pvt. Ltd. changed its name to Amod Industries Ltd. Subsequently, Amod Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with Amod Industries Ltd. with all assets, liabilities and statutory charges.

(2.) In the year 2002, SBI filed Original Application for recovery of its dues before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. When the matter was pending, the debts of the borrower due to SBI was assigned to the petitioner Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (the bank for short) on 23.3.2006 alongwith all underlying securities. The petitioner initially issued notice on the borrower on 25.1.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitization Act). The borrower having failed to pay the dues, the petitioner took measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act on 12.4.2007 for taking possession. An application under Section 14 of the Securitization Act was filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent District Magistrate, Bharuch, who by order dated 23.9.2008 allowed the application and directed the Mamlatdar, Amod to arrange for police protection and videography and to take possession of the secured assets.

(3.) The 2nd respondent is an Officer of the Excise & Customs Department of the Central Government. He issued a letter dated 10.12.2008 to the petitioner informing the confiscation of plant, machinery and other movable and immovable properties of the borrower. The petitioner replied that the 2nd respondent could not do so and if aggrieved against the action taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, the 2nd respondent may move before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitization Act.