M/s. Sai Hemaja Aerobricks Pvt. Limited vs State Bank of India & another
W.P.No.33239 of 2023
Facts:
1.Petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in Crl.M.P.No.3743 of 2023 under Section 14 of SARFAESI. By the said order the Magistrate has directed taking over of the symbolic possession of the secured asset
Issue: Whether against the aforesaid order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the Magistrate, the petitioners have the remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.?
Arguments:
Petitioner:
1.Conusel submitted that action of the Magistrate cannot be assailed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that the petitioners do not have the remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
2.Counsel also relied on various cases to buttress their arguments.
Decision: HC dismissed the petition.
Rationale:
1.Relying on various decisions, the court held that Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act provides that no act of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate or any officer authorised by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority.
2.It held that Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act is neither a Court nor an Authority. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act does not apply to a remedy provided before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act
Order:
