POONAWALA HOUSING FINANCIAL LTD. Vs. RAJU HAIDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc.Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the impugned order dated dtd. 16/11/2022 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, in the proceeding initiated by the petitioner under Sec. 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the SARFAESI Act).

(2.) Brief facts relevant for disposal of this Mis. Petition are to the effect :

(3.) Shri Vivek Jain with Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner while taking exception to the impugned order submits that the CJM has misdirected himself in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act as well as failed to consider the requirement of issue of demand notice as contemplated under Sec. 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 3 of the rules. Further elaborating his submissions, learned counsel submits that requirement of rule 3 of the rules in the context of demand notice as referred to in sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 13 is to place on record the evidence of delivery including hand delivery or transmission of notice at the place where the borrower or his agent, empowered to accept the notice or documents on behalf of the borrower etc. In the instant case, notices to each of the borrowers have been separately issued by the speed post. A copy of the notices is annexed as Annexure P/6 at page 87 of the petition. Besides, the envelop containing the said notices bore separate docket number and date of dispatch, the details of which are quoted below: