IDBI BANK LTD Vs. HYTAISUN MAGNETICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by IDBI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") against the order dated 21-9-2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Mehsana in M.C.C. Case No. 1 of 2010.

(2.) BY the impugned order, the District Magistrate, Mehsana held that the Bank failed to prove that it is a secured creditor, and thereby, came to the conclusion that the application filed under Sec. 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securitization Act") is not tenable and thereby rejected the application.

(3.) THE respondent-borrowers have appeared and supported the stand taken by the District Magistrate. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-borrowers would contend that the District Magistrate had not made any adjudication or decision on merit, but merely required the Bank to produce the original title deeds for simply verifying the existence of the fact of secured assets claimed by the Bank. He referred to two judgments delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in two different cases in support of his case, viz. (i) unreported decision dated 3-3-2008 passed in the case of Dena Bank v. District Magistrate in Spl.C.A. No. 3943 of 2008 and (ii) the decision in the case of Authorized Officer, Canara Bank v. Sulay Traders through Bipin Kantilal Vakta, reported in 2010 (1) GLR 770. It is stated that the judgment in the case of Dena Bank was also affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10-7-2009 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 877 of 2008.