AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
An application has been moved seeking extension of time for annexing/depositing the requisite court fee with the writ petition. In view of the
grounds urged therein, it is allowed. The petitioner shall deposit the requisite court fee with the Registry of this Court within a period of one month
from the date Registry shall start working normally.
CM no. 3319/2021 stands disposed of accordingly.
Heard Shri A. H. Furrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the UT respondents.
The petitioner by means of this writ petition has inter alia challenged the proceedings for possession of the secured assets.
It appears that the petitioner is a borrower and had mortgaged some of his property to secure the loan. On account of the default in payment of the
borrowed money proceedings were initiated against him under the securitization. Now the bank has approached to the District Magistrate under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the property.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not mortgaged the property in question and that the bank is trying
to take possession of the additional land which has not been mortgaged.
The application of the bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act clearly describes the property which has been mortgaged. In case any of the
property described therein has not been mortgaged the petitioner can take objections to that effect by filing an appropriate application before the
District Magistrate.
It is apt to mention here that the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has to be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by
the authorized Officer of the establishment i.e., the Bank declaring certain things therein as provided under the aforesaid provision. It is only on the
receipt of such application that the District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on being satisfied of the contents of the application, may pass
suitable orders for the purposes of taking possession of the secured assets.
9 We are not aware if any final order has been passed by the District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, as is
contemplated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has not challenged any such I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document order. Therefore, in the event, if no order has been passed, the District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may consider the
application of the Bank in accordance with law as aforesaid and pass appropriate orders accordingly. In the event any order has already been passed
by the District Magistrate, it is open for the petitioner to challenge it before the appropriate authority.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.