CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. H. C. Bhatt for learned advocate Mr. Sandeep Bhatt for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Vishwas Shah for the respondent No.2, 3 and 4.

(2.) The petitioner Central Bank of India has prayed to set aside order dated 7.5.2016 passed by respondent No.1 District Magistrate, Surat, in case No. 31 of 2014, which was a proceedings before the said authority under section-14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. By the said order, the District Magistrate accepting the objection of the creditor, cancelled his earlier order dated 21.10.2015, whereby he had directed handing over of possession of the secured assets to the bank.

(3.) Noticing the minimum facts necessary for going into controversy, it appears that the petitioner bank had sanctioned loan of Rs. 25 lakhs in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein in the year 2002. Because of irregularity in re-payment of loan installments, the account came to be classified as Non Performing Account in the year 2003. It followed the notice by the bank to the loanees under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and further notice dated 4.6.2010 for handing over the possession. As the possession was not handed over, the bank filed application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the first respondent and District Magistrate, seeking possession of the secured property. 3. 1 It appears that pursuant to the application, the respondent borrowers filed objection on 29.08.2010 to the application of the bank. They filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner which was investigated and the police filed a closure report. After the investigation, the petitioner bank again filed application on 5.3.2014 under section 14 of the Act which resulted into order of the District Magistrate dated 21.10.2015 whereby the application of the bank was allowed and the possession of the secured property was directed to be handed over to the bank. The Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate issued notice affixing the same on the property in the process of taking of possession pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 21.10.2015 of the District Magistrate. It appears that at this stage, the respondent No.2 once again filed objection before the District Magistrate on 17.12.2015. The petitioner appeared and filed reply to the objection. Ultimately impugned order dated 7.5.2016 resulted, whereby the District Magistrate cancelled his earlier order dated 21.10.2015.