AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The learned counsel for petitioners is absent. Heard learned counsel for respondent No. 1. In Crl. RP 188/2012, this court has passed the order on 10.06.2013 reading as hereunder:
Heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the applications for vacating stay in each of these petitions.
The primary contention is that, the present petitioners seek to challenge an order passed u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ''the SARFAESI Act'' for brevity) and the same is an appealable order and since it is necessary for the petitioners to make a deposit in each of these cases as a precondition, there is a requirement of a deposit before the Appellate Court. Apparently, in order to avoid such a measure, the petitioners have chosen to approach this Court and the learned counsel would place reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard to contend that the only remedy available to an aggrieved party insofar as an order passed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is to prefer an appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order is without jurisdiction and therefore, the question of an appeal against such an order would not arise and it is a revision petition before this Court which alone would be maintainable, as the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Even assuming that this court could address the petition as it was without jurisdiction of the competent court, the petitioner would yet be liable to make the deposit as a pre-condition in order to establish his bonafides. Therefore, the petitioners are obliged to deposit 75% of the amount in dispute before this Court failing which the interim order of stay granted would stand vacated and the petition should be rendered in fructuous. Therefore, one week''s time is granted finally to make the deposit or to withdraw the petitions and to approach the Appellate Authority.
List next week.
The petitioners have not deposited the amount in terms of order dated 10.06.2013.
These petitions are filed against the order made by VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ''SARFAESI'' Act). It is contended by the petitioners that the learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to pass the order.
u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, an application for possession can be filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. In these cases, applications were filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and they have been made over to VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore, the contention of petitioners that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and they are not required to file an appeal u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, cannot be accepted. The petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.