Skip to content


Smt. Santosh Raghav Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Property

Court

Delhi High Court

Decided On

Case Number

CW Nos. 2279 and 10845/2003

Judge

Reported in

2003VIAD(Delhi)513; 107(2003)DLT223; 2003(71)DRJ21; 2003RLR105

Acts

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 - Sections 14

Appellant

Smt. Santosh Raghav

Respondent

Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Appellant Advocate

 Anil Grover, Adv

Respondent Advocate

 Rakesh Kumar Garg, Adv. for Respondent No. 2

Excerpt:


.....referred to as the said act) where it is clearly stated that the chief metropolitan magistrate or district magistrate may assist a secured creditor in taking possession of a secured asset provided the secured asset is within the jurisdiction of said chief metropolitan magistrate or district magistrate. in the present case, it is obvious that the notice has purportedly been issued by the court receiver appointed by the chief metropolitan magistrate, delhi by a purported order dated 14.2.2003. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite best efforts, he has not been able to get the copy of the order dated 14.2.2003. 3. be that as it may, the facts are very clear......metropolitan magistrate, delhi by a purported order dated 14.2.2003. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite best efforts, he has not been able to get the copy of the order dated 14.2.2003. 3. be that as it may, the facts are very clear. the property in question that is the secured asset which is sought to be taken possession of is an immovable property situated in plot no.69, block a, sector no.56, noida, u.p. which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the chief metropolitan magistrate, delhi. ex facie the chief metropolitan magistrate, delhi even if he did pass the order-dated 14.2.2003, could not have done so in terms of the express provisions of section 14 of the said act. in this view of the matter the said notice is quashed.4. the petitioner has raised other issues in the present petition which need not be gone into at this stage. it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on them and the same are left open and the petitioner is at liberty to raise the same before an appropriate forum. with these directions, the writ petition and cm stand disposed of.

Judgment:


Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the notice (anneuxre-P/2) which was pasted on the premises in question. The notice reads as under:

' NOTICE

The possession of this property No.A-69, Sec.56 situated at NOIDA owned by Jagdan Singh has been taken over on 7.3.2003 at 5 p.m. by Oriental Bank of Commerce under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 by order dated 14.2.2003 issued by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi.

Court Receiver

Appointed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Delhi.

Authorised Officer

Oriental Bank of Commerce.'

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 14 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) where it is clearly stated that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate may assist a secured creditor in taking possession of a secured asset provided the secured asset is within the jurisdiction of said Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate. In the present case, it is obvious that the notice has purportedly been issued by the court receiver appointed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by a purported order dated 14.2.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite best efforts, he has not been able to get the copy of the order dated 14.2.2003.

3. Be that as it may, the facts are very clear. The property in question that is the secured asset which is sought to be taken possession of is an immovable property situated in plot No.69, Block A, Sector No.56, NOIDA, U.P. which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Ex facie the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi even if he did pass the order-dated 14.2.2003, could not have done so in terms of the express provisions of Section 14 of the said Act. In this view of the matter the said notice is quashed.

4. The petitioner has raised other issues in the present petition which need not be gone into at this stage. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on them and the same are left open and the petitioner is at liberty to raise the same before an appropriate forum.

With these directions, the writ petition and CM stand disposed of.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //