REETA SRIVASTAVA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these proceedings, the petitioner seeks to question the legality of an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (Securitisation Act).

(2.) In the application which was filed before the District Magistrate, the second respondent pleaded that it had extended financial assistance in the amount of Rs.10 lacs to the borrowers who had executed a security agreement on 15 September 2005 against immovable property. The petitioner is a co-borrower. On a default committed by the borrowers, the second respondent stated that it had issued a demand notice on 24 June 2011 under Section 13(2) calling upon the borrowers to repay the entire dues in the amount of Rs.10,69,589/- within 60 days. According to the petitioner, on 1 September 2011, the second respondent affixed a possession notice on the property. The petitioner challenged the possession notice by filing a securitisation application under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The application is pending. Admittedly, no interim order enures to the benefit of the petitioner.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that in the reply which the second respondent filed to the securitisation application, it was stated that the second respondent had not adopted a measure under Section 13 (4) until the institution of the securitisation application. The second respondent stated that its notice dated 1 September 2011 only demanded possession of the property. The second respondent filed an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act before the Collector and District Magistrate, Lucknow on 23 October 2011. The application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 10 March 2014 which is sought to be questioned in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.