DECCAN CHRONICAL HOLDINGS LIMITED Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai in SA SR No.2806 of 2015, whereunder the application of the writ petitioner under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act") was rejected on the ground that the application is not maintainable for the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for adjudication in this case are as under :

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the aforestated application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, assailing the validity of the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Presiding Officer, after considering the case and also referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and others1, held that no appeal is maintainable against the order of possession passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.