KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN light of the view that the Court is inclined to adopt, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties are directed to waive service.

(2.) THIS petition has been preferred challenging order dated 26. 2. 2009 made by respondent No. 1 herein, District Magistrate, Banaskantha, in purported exercise of powers under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act), and communication/order dated 18. 4. 2009, rejecting the application made by the petitioner to reconsider order dated 26. 2. 2009, which respectively appear at Annexures 'a' and 'b'.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this High Court rendered by learned Single Judge as reported in case of Bank of India V. Pankaj Dilipbhai Hemnani and Ors. ,air 2007 Gujarat 201 as confirmed by Division Bench of this High Court vide judgment rendered on 20. 2. 2009 in case of Satyendra Singh Gupta (HUF) and Another Vs. Authorised Officer in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1472 of 2008, to emphasise the point that this Court has consistently held that District Magistrate in exercise of powers under section 14 of the Securitisation Act, does not have adjudicatory powers and therefore could not have made the orders impugned.