P.RAMALINGAM Vs. S.CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the order dtd. 10/7/2018 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.4190 of 2017 in Crl.M.P.No.1669 of 2016. The said challenge is made precisely on the ground of competence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in passing the order under Sec. 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is for the reason that earlier, an order was passed under Sec. 14 of the Act, 2002, dtd. 14/6/2017 and now, the order passed is dtd. 10/7/2018. It is submitted that when once an order was passed under Sec. 14 of the Act, 2002, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate becomes "functus-officio" and otherwise, he has no power to review or recall the order, as the statute does not provide for it. It is otherwise going against the order passed by the Supreme Court on settlement between the parties. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was acting on the application of the first respondent.

(2.) Coming to the facts of this case, it is stated that, after the litigation between the borrower, the Bank and the auction purchaser, i.e. the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7342 of 2020, a settlement was arrived at and in terms of the settlement, a criminal appeal (in Crl.M.P.No.5469 of 2012) in Crl.A.No.1524 of 2011, before the Apex Court, was disposed of by judgment dtd. 7/5/2012. Referring to the memo of settlement entered into between the parties, it is submitted that as far as the right of the auction purchaser is concerned, it was kept confirmed and in view of the above, the Bank was directed to release the papers in favour of the borrower. By order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under challenge, now, hindrance has been created to get the possession of the property by the auction purchaser, despite the deposit of the entire money and therefore, the Writ Petition had been filed not only challenging the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, but also seeking further direction for handing over the possession of the property to the auction purchaser.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, on settlement between the parties, they have received the entire amount of sale proceeds from the auction purchaser, but could not give possession of the property on account of the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the reason that the borrower is not allowing the possession to be given to the auction purchaser. Thus, the Bank supported the case of the petitioner.