Criminal Writ Petition No. 3625 of 2010. Case: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petition No. 3625 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Kishore Jain with Ms. Abha Gupta i/b Tushar Goradia, Adv. and For Respondents: Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP, Ms. Mallika A. Ingale, V. Mishra i/b Ms. V. Mishra and Co., Adv. |
| Judges | B. H. Marlapalle, J. and U. D. Salvi , J. |
| Issue | Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002) - Sections 13, 14(2) |
| Citation | AIR 2011 Bom 188 |
| Judgement Date | June 10, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
B. H. Marlapalle, J.
-
Heard. Rule. Respondents waive service. The petition is heard finally by consent of the parties.
-
This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for directions to respondent No. 2 to forth with implement the order dated 14th June, 2010 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate so as to take the physical possession of the secured assets from whosoever found in possession and if necessary, with the assistance of the police and by breaking open the locks and handover the same to the authorised officer of the petitioner.
-
The petitioner is a banking company as defined in Clause 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It claims to have a reco-very of Rs. 204,67,34,100/- along with other Working Capital Bankers and the claims are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Ahmedabad. On 6th March, 2009, a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act for short), was issued by the petitioner to respondent No. 3, which is a guarantor and mortgagor, to pay an amount of Rs. 85,16,64,243/- due and payable to the petitioner as on 4th September, 2003 within a period of 60 days with further interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of the notice. On 6th July, 2009, the authorised officer of the petitioner along with representative of the secured creditors visited the secured assets being the Unit of the respondent No. 3 and demanded the possession of the mortgaged property. Possession was not handed over. The authorised officer filed an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order directing the Assistant Registrar, Borivali Centre of Courts (respondent No. 2) to take possession of the mortgaged assets along with accounts and handover the same to the authorized officer of the petitioner.
-
On 18th June, 2010, respondent No. 2 issued a notice to respondent No. 3 informing the date fixed for possession of the secured assets, consequent to the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 14th June, 2010. When the respondent No. 2 visited the premises for implementation of the order dated 14th June, 2010, a copy of the order passed by the Small Causes Court in RAD Suit No. 973/2009 on 11th August, 2010 was submitted and it was claimed that the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could not be implemented so long as the order passed by the Small Causes Court continued to operate. Respondent No. 2, therefore, submitted a report to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate about her inability to implement the order passed on 14th June, 2010. It is in these circumstances this petition came to be filed and a Show Cause Notice was issued to respondent No. 2 by this Court, for not complying the order passed on 14th June, 2010 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
-
On 25th April, 2011, this Court directed respondent No. 2 to appear before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 26th April, 2011 and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was expected to deal with the issue. Accordingly, the learned Chief...
To continue reading
Request your trial