MD HAKIMUDDIN PARWANA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short DRAT) dated January 10, 2019 passed in Appeal No. 203 of 2018 (Syndicate Bank Vs. Md. Hakimuddin parwana) is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the Bank invoked the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act of 2002). Initially, the petitioner was faced with an order dated April 3, 2018. The same was passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The same was challenged under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 and was set aside. However, in course of hearing of the application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, the Bank produced a copy of an order dated May 7, 2018 passed by the District Magistrate (DM). He submits that, the initial order dated April 3, 2018 was numbered as '4' by the ADM. There is no material made available on record that, the Bank made two applications under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. The subsequent order dated May 7, 2018 is numbered as 'Order No. 30'. In a span of about 26 days between the orders dated April 3, 2018 and May 7, 2018 apparently, 26 orders were passed by the DM. He then draws the attention of the Court to the order dated May 7, 2018 of the DM and submits that, it is signed on April 17, 2018. In any event, he submits that, the DM authorised the ADM (General), Jalpaiguri to depute one Executive Magistrate to take possession of the secured assets. He submits that, the DM exceeded his powers under Section 14(1-A) of the Act of 2002 in doing so. The DM under Section 14(1- A) of the Act of 2002 is authorised to direct any officer subordinate to him to take possession of the secured assets and to forward such assets to the secured creditor. In the present case, the DM proceeded to authorise the ADM (General) to depute one Executive Magistrate to take possession of the secured assets. The same is not permissible. He relies upon an unreported judgment and order dated July 4, 2014 passed by the Division Bench in M.A. No. 26 of 2014 (Chellaperumal Vs. The Authorised Officer). Therefore, according to him, the impugned order of the DRAT being perverse should be quashed.

(3.) Learned advocate for the Bank submits that, the DM did not exceed the jurisdiction under Section 14 (1-A) of the Act of 2002 in directing the ADM (General), Jalpaiguri to depute the Executive Magistrate to take possession of the secured assets. Moreover, in the present case, the borrower is in debt of an amount in excess of Rs.90 lakhs. Therefore, according to him, no interference is called for.