@ @ C/(/ \ d$\ aingie Emma BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURI‘ OF CHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (C) No. high /2011 PETITIONER: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, a Banking Company Within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at 36-38A, Nariman Bhavan, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 and having ffice inter aha at Asset Reconstruction Division, tak Infinity, 2nd iloor, Zone II Building No. 21, f3 ff Westem Express Highway, General .K.Vaidya Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 700016 VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. (THE STATE OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH, through the Chief Secretary, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Rajgarh, Chattisgarh. PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED, an Asset Reconstruction Company Registered under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and having its Registered office at 240, Navsari Building,‘ 1st Floor, D.N.Road, Mumbai and Office 7th Floor, Dani Corporate Park, 158, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz (East) Mumbai -400 098 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ¥ //‘\ / and also having its office at Apeejay House, ,GOV’Y~ \‘—‘/U7 g; 1 Block - C 7th Floor, 15 Park Street, Kolkata - o o ) , \\ %“»,~a..H.V _ 6% HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4254 OF 2011 PETITIONER Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate with Shri PR. Patankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 3'“ day of August, 2011) Jj 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. r ta/ 2. By this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned notice dated 28-12-2010 passed by the Collector, Raigarh, and to dispense with the service of said notice dated 28-12«2010 upon the respondent company. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Collector, Raigarh to finally hear and dispose of the application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act, 2002”). 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has tiled an application under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 on 8-12-2010 before the Collector, Raigarh. The Collector has g issued notice to the company on 28-12—2010 to appear before him, which is beyond the scope of the provisions, as envisaged under Section 14 of the Act, 2002, therefore, the notice is arbitrary, illegal and wrongful in the eyes of law, Thus, this petition. 4. Section 14 of the Act, 2002 reads as under : “14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to .\ assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.—-(1) ~ Where the possession of any secured {w ® asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him (a)take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and (b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor. (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority." The provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 2002 is akin to execution of a decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and, as such, the District Magistrate cannot alter or amend the order passed under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 except to take possession and fonNard such assets to the secured creditor. Though there is no contemplation of any notice to other company, as the order was passed under Section 13 (4), after considering the reply of the borrower company under Section 13 (3A) of the Act, "/ ' Gowri 3 2002, however, since the notice has been issued, it is expected that the District Magistrate shali proceed to examine the case in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and pass an appropriate order in its letter and spirit. In view of foregoing, since notice has already been issued, there is no point to dispense with the same, however, the intention and purpose of Section 14 of the Act, 2002 has already been explained hereinabove. Thus, the District Magistrate cannot go beyond the scope of the legal provisions. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. ‘r Sd/- Satish K. AgnihOtri Judge