.0 '<ft ^x^. v^->. \%^o 3" o w a ^t S. _M J" ° S' ~0 t' ,c ,'^ c c ffi- °h ""i "^ ^3" "°'r< M c—( o !U ~T 3 3 s' a> M 3 Q- O- < Q 3- =T F¥ c Efl c~ 3 0) Q. -< < tQ O 3~ CB 03 c w o 0) c3 £0 B) U) -o c 3 <D 3 »~(- 3 p CBcm CD -^>J l^'lIIIn ^*1 —g 3~ -^oc c r-<-. N (6 o CD "1 o 3 f-t. (tl SD3o (D r~ (C l^- I'v !<• '^ ^ H1GH CCTJRT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BIUkSPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kymar Mishra Writ Petition (C) PETITIONER PLA1NTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Cent Bank Home Finarice Limited Sallu Ram Yadav & another. Shrt Anand ShuMa, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advoeate for the State/respondent None for respondent No.1. .2. WRTT PET1TION UNDERARTIGL£227OF THE CONSTmjTION OF ms& ! : ": :.":'':•:!:'.^ ORALORDER The petitioner herein is the secured creditor vnth respect to the amount of toan advance to the resporelent No-1. The petitioner moved an appl'ication under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstructton of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security tnterest Act, ChteT Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur 'Ofl to as 'Act, Annexure P/9) praying ^an order (2) The teamed C.J.M., by the impugned order, has issued v/arrai exact amount of the outstamiing loan amount against the respondenf No.1 (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioner makes two folds submission, firsffy that the Chief Judicial fttegistrate could noi have issued 'of attachment in viewof Uie specKte provision contained in Secffon 14i -a-f t of the Act, 2002 and secondy that since by Anne subsequently fumished the detaite of the outstanding P/7 he has loan amount, the teamed Chief Judicial Magistrate shouM have exercised the power (4) No one appears for respondent No. 1 even though notice issued by this Court has teen ser/ed upon him. (5) On wfth the petitioner's application under Section 1 4 entertained but instead of ordering delivery of possession warrant of attachment was issued <m the ground that the amount of toan advaswed to the respQiKlent No.1 has not been mentioned in the applteation. Thep^itiQnerpreferrectareviewpetttionmentJon{ng in (»raSthereofthe loanamount and the amount outstandirg againstthe borrower. The review petition was dismissed on 11 'The petitioner thereafter mov®Janrther apptication under Section 14 ofthe Act,2(X)2i theimpugned teamed (Annexure P/9) whreh has fWt been entertained and again b' order, insteadof ordering for del!veryofpossession,tlii Chief Jydteial Magistrate has issued wairant ofattachment. (6) Section 14 of the Act, 2002 reads thus:- "14. Chief MefrQpoIftan ftogSstrate or Maglstivte to assfef securetf credttor in talvng - possesslon of secured asset- W Where the possessron of any seciired assetsss reqiiiredto betaken by thesecured creditororif anyofthe semred assete is reqwred to be sold or transferresi by the secured creditor Av the purpose of teNng ppssession or confto/ of eny i, -3- u sucft secu d asset, request, in wrMng, tha Chief Metropolitan Magfefrafe or the District Magistrate wShin wftose juriscScfion any sucft secured assef or offter ifociiments felating thereto may be sstuated or ftiURd, to teRe possessfon ffiereof, and fhe Cftref Metropolitan Magistrate or, asthe case may be, the Distnct Magistrate shaU, ofl such request being macfe to him- (a) take possesston of smh assef ancf cfocumente relatsng thereto; and fofwarel such assets and ctocynwnfe to (fte For (fte purpose of securing comft'iance wsth ttie provfeions of sub-secfion (1), e Chief IWefropolffan Magistrate ofthe EHstrict Magistrate maytake orcaiise to betaken such steps and use, orcause to be used, such foree, as may, m Ws opmlon, be necessa/y. f3) No actof e Cteef Mefropolten Magfefrafe or ff»e Gstrict Magistrate donein pursuance oftfvs secffon shalt be cafed mquesSonin any courf orfcefore any authority." (7) On a bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 14 ft wouid appear that the District Ntagistrsrte or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which incliries CJM in the non-metropolitan areg, as held by the Kerata Hgh Court »nVolume (IV) 2006 Banking Cases 536 in the matter of Solaris Systems Vs. Oriental Bank and Commerce, sl^ill have the fx>wer to take pos^ssion of the secured assets or document and forward such assete aml documents to the secured cre9itors. Though subSestion 2 of Sectton 14provjdesthatforthe pu^sose of securing compliance with the the Chie^ MeAropolitan Magistrate cause to be taken such steps L provisions of sub Section (1), the District Megistrate may take or use, or cause to be used, sucfi foree, as may, m his opinion, be necessary, %hich may empowerj \.: i •-^- to issue warrant of attachment al%> in a given case, but »nthe facts of the present case when the order of issuing warrant of attachment was passed only on the ground that the petitioner has not stated the amount of loan aclvarwe to the respondent No.1, which information was subsequently supptied to the leamed CJM, the said authority ought to have exercised jurisdiction when the petitiQner again made a prayer for isswtnce of warrant of pos^ssion. (8) In the opinion of this Court the instant petition deserves to be allowed and disposed ofwiththe following direction: The petftfoner shall move hesh applteatton ynder Section 14 of the Act, 2038 by gmng al( partteulars regarding the amount of loan and the outstandir^ amourit on the date of moving the application and such other inTomnation as may necessary in law and upon such appSication being moyed, the CJM shall deckle of possession, as earty as possiye. ication for issuina 'A^rranl Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge