Prem Kumar Singh vs Central Bank of India

Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. A challenge is made to the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by Learned DRT 3 Kolkata dismissing the I.A. No. 2656 of 2023 wherein a challenge is made to Section 14 order passed by the Learned District Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that Learned District Magistrate has not gone into correctness of the affidavit. A representation under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was made by the Appellant on receipt of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. But in the affidavit filed before the Learned District Magistrate it is stated that no further representation was made. Accordingly, it was a false statement which should have been looked into by the Learned District Magistrate. Learned DRT however, did not appropriately appreciate the issue and discussed the application.

It has been held in the case of R.D. Jain and Company versus Capital first Limited and other (2023) 1 SCC 675 that steps to be taken by the DM/CMM u/s 14 of the Act is a ministerial step while disposing of the application u/s 14 of the Act, no element of quasi-judicial function or adjudication is attracted. DM/CMM has to adjudicate and decide the correctness of information given in the application and nothing more. Therefore, Section 14 of the Act does not involve an adjudicatory process qua points raised by borrower against secured creditor taking possession of secured asset. Judgement of R.D.Jain (supra) was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balkrishna Rama Tarle (supra) wherein it was held that Section 14 of the Act does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrower against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. One of the requirements of Section 14 of the Act is to reflect his satisfaction and it is the duty cast upon the DM/CMM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining possession of the secured assets, CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between borrower and secured creditor and/or between any other third party and secured with respect to secured assets.

As the role of Learned District Magistrate in disposing of an application under Section 14 of the Act is of a ministerial nature, he cannot enter into the merit of the matter. Any irregularity or illegality committed by the secured Creditor is always open to challenge as per the law. Admittedly, an application under Section 17 of the Act is filed by the Appellant which is pending before the Learned DRT. Appellant would be at liberty to raise all the pleas before the Learned DRT. However, as far as illegality of the impugned order is concerned, since the Learned District Magistrate has to act only a ministerial role, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, Appeal is liable to be dismissed in limini.

ORDER

The appeal being Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 330 of 2024 is dismissed in limini. Impugned order dated 09.10.2023 passed by Learned DRT-3 Kolkata is confirmed.

No Order as to costs.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

Order pronounced by me in the open Court on 29th day of April, 2024.