Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS & Anr Versus Phoenix ARC Private Limited & Ors.

Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS & Anr Versus Phoenix ARC Private Limited & Ors. 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.  16013 OF 2022
Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS & Anr.           ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Phoenix ARC Private Limited & Ors.    …Respondent(s)
O R D E R
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the High
Court   of   Judicature   at   Bombay   in   Writ   Petition   No.
9749/2021, by which the Division Bench of the High Court
has   allowed   the   said   writ   petition   preferred   by   the
respondent No. 1 herein – secured creditor and has set
aside order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the designated
authority   under   Section   14   of   the   Securitisation   and
Reconstruction   of   Financial   Assets   and   Enforcement   of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the
SARFAESI   Act,   2002)   and   directed   the   designated
1
authority under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to dispose
of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
afresh, legal heirs of original respondent No. 2 claiming to
be the tenant of the mortgaged property, have preferred
the present Special Leave Petition. 
  
2. The Religare Finvest Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
Religare) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 6 crores in favour of the
borrowers.   The   said   loan   was   secured   by   a   registered
mortgage created by borrowers in  favour of Religare in
respect of the property ­ secured assets. The borrowers
committed defaults in repayment of the said loan which
led to Religare classifying borrowers’ account as a NonPerforming Asset (NPA). The Religare thereafter, issued a
notice   dated   13.04.2018   under   Section   13(2)   of   the
SARFAESI Act calling upon borrowers to pay the amount
then outstanding under the said facility. That thereafter,
by   a   Deed   of   Assignment   dated   29.09.2018,   Religare
assigned all its right, title, interest, and benefit under the
said loan agreement to respondent No. 1 herein – original
petitioner No. 1 before the High Court. Thus, respondent
No. 1 – original petitioner No. 1 stepped into the shoes of
2
Religare   and   became   the   secured   creditor   and   in   that
capacity issued a notice dated 21.05.2019 under Section
13(2)   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   to   borrowers   calling   upon
borrowers to make payment of a sum of Rs. 5,83,22,866/­.
That   thereafter,   the   secured   creditor   took   symbolic
possession of the secured assets under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act. On 21.09.2019, the same was intimated to
the borrowers vide their letter dated 21.09.2019. A public
notice   was   also   issued   by   the   secured   creditor   in   two
newspapers   in   compliance   with   the   provisions   of   the
Security   Interest   (Enforcement)   Rules,   2002.   That
thereafter, the secured creditor filed an application under
Section   14   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   seeking   assistance   of
designated authority – respondent No. 3 herein – District
Magistrate, Nashik, for taking physical possession of the
secured assets. The petitioner herein – original respondent
No. 2 claiming to be a tenant in respect of the ground floor
plus first floor showroom along with service station on a
part   of   the   secured   assets   bearing   Nos.   465   and   463
sought to intervene in the said proceedings filed under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner placed
3
reliance   upon   an   order   dated   20.04.2018   passed   in
Regular Civil Suit No. 58/2018 filed by him against one of
the   borrowers,   whereby   one   of   the   borrowers   was
restrained   from   dis­possessing   him   from   the   said
premises. At this stage, it is required to be noted that
neither the borrower(s) nor the petitioner(s) instituted any
proceedings   before   the   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal   (DRT)
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the steps
taken   under   Section   13   of   the   SARFAESI   Act.   That
thereafter, the designated authority passed the following
order dated 27.08.2021 and declined to assist the secured
creditor in taking possession of the secured assets and
kept the said application pending by observing that after
termination of the tenancy rights of the petitioner by the
Finance Company by following due procedure of law the
further   orders   regarding   possession   of   the   mortgage
property will be decided. The order dated 27.08.2021 is as
under: ­ 
1. In consideration of the reasons recorded in the
above   referred   issues   and   conclusions,   the
Application of the Finance Company is kept for
decision.
2. After termination of the tenancy rights of the
third­person   Complainant   Shri.   Balkrishna
4
Rama   Tarle   by   the   Finance   Company   by
following due procedure of law the further orders
regarding possession of the mortgage property
will be decided.
3. If any party feel aggrieved due to this order, then
they may file an appeal under section 17 of the
Securitisation   Act,   2002   before   Hon’ble   Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai.
4. No order as to cost.”
2.1 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   order   dated
27.08.2021   passed   by   the   designated   authority   –
Additional District Magistrate, Nashik in not passing any
order of assisting the secured creditor in taking possession
of the secured assets in exercise of powers under Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor preferred
writ   petition   before   the   High   Court.   By   the   impugned
judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court
has   set   aside   order   dated   27.08.2021   passed   by   the
designated   authority/Additional   District   Magistrate   by
observing that such an order is beyond the scope and
ambit of the powers to be exercised under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act. That thereafter, the Division Bench of
the   High   Court   has   directed   the   designated
authority/Additional   District   Magistrate   to   hear   and
5
dispose   of   the   application   under   Section   14   of   the
SARFAESI Act in accordance with the provisions of Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act.
       
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the third
party – petitioner(s) claiming to be a tenant in some of the
secured assets have preferred the present Special Leave
Petition. 
3. Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in
the facts and circumstances of the case and when the
petitioners claimed to be the tenant of the original landlord
with respect to some of the secured assets of which the
possession   was   sought   and   when   the   original   writ
petitioner stepped into the shoes of the original landlord as
rightly observed by the designated authority – Additional
District   Magistrate   unless   the   secured   creditor   who
stepped into the shoes of the original landlord initiates the
legal proceedings for eviction of the tenant cannot get the
possession   in   an   application   under   Section   14   of   the
SARFAESI Act. 
6
3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Navare, learned Senior
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the
High Court ought to have appreciated that the tenancy was
subsisting and continuing since prior to the mortgage of
the property and therefore, their rights are to be protected
and   unless   and   until   the   proceedings   are   initiated   for
eviction of the tenant, the secured creditor who will be in
the   shoes   of   the   original   landlord,   cannot   get   the
possession   in   an   application   under   Section   14   of   the
SARFAESI Act. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of
this Court in the cases of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar
Vs.   International   Assets   Reconstruction   Company
Limited and Ors.; (2014) 6 SCC 1 and Vishal N. Kalsaria
Vs. Bank of India and Ors.; (2016) 3 SCC 762.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners at length. At the outset, it is required to be
noted that after initiation of the proceedings and taking
steps under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,
thereafter,   the   secured   creditor   has   approached   the
District   Magistrate   by   submitting   an   application   under
7
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and has requested the
District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate to assist
the secured creditor in obtaining the possession of the
secured assets. It is required to be noted that neither the
original   borrowers   nor   even   the   petitioners   who   are
claiming to be a tenant of the secured assets have initiated
any   proceedings   before   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal   under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The proceedings before
the   District   Magistrate   were   under   Section   14   of   the
SARFAESI Act. In the said application under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act instead of passing any final order to
assist the secured creditor in getting the possession of the
secured assets and while keeping the said application, the
Additional District Magistrate has passed an order that
only   after   the   termination   of   the   tenancy  rights   of   the
petitioner by the finance company (secured creditor) by
following due procedure of law the further orders regarding
possession of the mortgage property, the said application
shall   be   decided.     The   aforesaid   order   passed   by   the
Additional District Magistrate has been set aside by the
8
High  Court  which  is the  subject  matter  of the  present
Special Leave Petition. 
5. Therefore,   the   short   question   which   is   posed   for
consideration of this Court is whether while exercising the
powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the District
Magistrate/designated authority could have passed such
an   order   that   unless   and   until   the   secured   creditor
terminates   the   tenancy   rights   of   the   third   person   by
following   due   procedure   of   law   and   further   orders
regarding possession of the mortgaged property then and
then   only   an   application   under   Section   14   of   the
SARFAESI Act will be decided?
5.1 While considering the aforesaid question/issue, the scope,
ambit,   and   jurisdiction   of   the   District
Magistrate/designated authority under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act are required to be considered. Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act reads as under: ­
“14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate
to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured
asset.—(1) Where the possession of any secured assets is
required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the
secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the
secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured
creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control
of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief
Metropolitan   Magistrate   or   the   District   Magistrate   within
9
whose   jurisdiction   any   such   secured   asset   or   other
documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take
possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such
request being made to him—
(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating
thereto; and 
(b)   forward   such   asset   and   documents   to   the   secured
creditor: 
[Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall
be   accompanied   by   an   affidavit   duly   affirmed   by   the
authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that— 
(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and
the  total  claim  of  the   Bank  as  on   the   date   of  filing  the
application; 
(ii)the borrower has created security interest over various
properties   and   that   the   Bank   or   Financial   Institution   is
holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such
properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution
is within the limitation period; 
(iii)the borrower has created security interest over various
properties giving the details of properties referred to in subclause (ii)above; 
(iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the
financial   assistance   granted   aggregating   the   specified
amount; 
(v)   consequent   upon   such   default   in   repayment   of   the
financial assistance the account of the borrower has been
classified as a non­performing asset; 
(vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required
by the provisions of sub­section (2) of section 13, demanding
payment   of   the   defaulted   financial   assistance   has   been
served on the borrower; 
(vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice
received   from   the   borrower   has   been   considered   by   the
secured  creditor and  reasons  for  non­acceptance of such
objection or representation had been communicated to the
borrower; 
10
(viii)   the   borrower   has   not   made   any   repayment   of   the
financial  assistance  in   spite  of   the  above   notice  and   the
Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of
the secured assets under the provisions of sub­section (4) of
section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act; 
(ix)   that   the   provisions   of   this   Act   and   the   rules   made
thereunder had been complied with:
Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from
the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief
Metropolitan   Magistrate,   as   the   case   may   be,   shall   after
satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders
for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets
[within a period of thirty days from the date of application]
[Provided also that if no order is passed by the Chief
Metropolitan   Magistrate   or   District   Magistrate   within   the
said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he
may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass
the order within such further period but not exceeding in
aggregate sixty days.] 
Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit
stated   in   the   first   proviso   shall   not   apply   to   proceeding
pending   before   any   District   Magistrate   or   the   Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of
commencement of this Act.]
[(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,—
(i)to take possession of such assets and documents relating
thereto; and (ii) to forward such assets and documents to the
secured creditor.]
(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the
provisions   of   sub­section   (1),   the   Chief   Metropolitan
Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be
taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force,
as may, in his opinion, be necessary. 
(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the
District   Magistrate   [any   officer   authorised   by   the   Chief
Metropolitan   Magistrate   or   District   Magistrate]   done   in
pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any
court or before any authority.”
11
5.2 On a fair reading of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it
appears that for taking possession of the secured assets in
terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured
creditor   is   obliged   to   approach   the   District
Magistrate/Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate   by   way   of   a
written application requesting for taking possession of the
secured   assets   and   documents   relating   thereto   and   for
being forwarded to it (secured creditor) for further action.
The statutory obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM
is to immediately move into action after receipt of a written
application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act from
the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such an
application is received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass
an order after verification of compliance of all formalities
by the secured creditor referred to in the proviso in Section
14(1) of the SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that
regard,   to   take   possession   of   the   secured   assets   and
documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the
secured creditor at the earliest opportunity. As observed
and held by this Court in the case of NKGSB Cooperative
Bank Limited Vs. Subir Chakravarty & Ors. (Civil Appeal
12
No. 1637/2022) decided on 25.02.2022, the aforesaid act
is a ministerial act. It cannot brook delay. Time is of the
essence and this is the spirit of the special enactment. In
the recent decision in the case of M/s R.D. Jain and Co.
Vs. Capital First Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 175/2022)
decided   on   27.07.2022,   this   Court   had   an   occasion   to
consider   the   powers   exercisable   by   District
Magistrate/Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate   under   Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act. After considering the object and
purpose   of   Section   14   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   and   the
Scheme of the Act under Section 14, it is observed and
held in paragraphs 7 to 9 as under: ­ 
“7. Now so far as the powers exercisable by DM and CMM
under   Section   14   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   are   concerned,
statement of objects and reasons for which SARFAESI Act
has been enacted reads as under: ­
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS 
The financial sector has been one of the key drivers in India's
efforts to achieve success in rapidly developing its economy.
While   the   banking   industry   in   India   is   progressively
complying   with   the   international   prudential   norms   and
accounting practices there are certain areas in which the
banking and financial sector do not have a level playing field
as compared to other participants in the financial markets in
the   world.   There   is   no   legal   provision   for   facilitating
securitisation   of   financial   assets   of   banks   and   financial
institutions. Further, unlike international banks, the banks
and financial institutions in India do not have power to take
possession of securities and sell them. Our existing legal
framework relating to commercial transactions has not kept
pace with the changing commercial practices and financial
13
sector reforms. This has resulted in slow pace of recovery of
defaulting   loans   and   mounting   levels   of   non­performing
assets   of   banks   and   financial   institutions.   Narasimham
Committee I and II and Andhyarujina Committee constituted
by the Central Government for the purpose of examining
banking sector reforms have considered the need for changes
in   the   legal   system   in   respect   of   these   areas.   These
Committees, inter alia, have suggested enactment of a new
legislation   for   securitisation   and   empowering   banks   and
financial institutions to take possession of the securities and
to sell them without the intervention of the court. Acting on
these suggestions, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial   Assets   and   Enforcement   of   Security   Interest
Ordinance, 2002 was promulgated on the 21st June, 2002 to
regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets
and   enforcement   of   security   interest   and   for   matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. The provisions of
the Ordinance would enable banks and financial institutions
to   realise   long­term   assets,   manage   problem   of   liquidity,
asset   liability   mismatches   and   improve   recovery   by
exercising powers to take possession of securities, sell them
and reduce nonperforming assets by adopting measures for
recovery or reconstruction.”   
Thus, the underlying purpose of the SARFAESI Act is
to empower the financial institutions in India to have similar
powers   as   enjoyed   by   their   counterparts,   namely,
international banks in other countries. One such feature is
to empower the financial institutions to take possession of
securities and sell them. The same has been translated into
provisions falling under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act.
Section 13 deals with enforcement of security interest. SubSection (4) thereof envisages that in the event a default is
committed by the borrower in discharging his liability in full
within the period specified in sub­section (2), the secured
creditor may take recourse to one or more of the measures
provided in sub­section (4). One of the measures is to take
possession of the secured assets of the borrower including
the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for
realising   the   secured  asset.   That,   they   could   do   through
their   “authorised   officer”   as   defined   in   Rule   2(a)   of   the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
7.1   After   taking   over   possession   of   the   secured   assets,
further steps to lease, assign or sale the same could also be
taken by the secured creditor. However, Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act predicates that if the secured creditor intends
to take possession of the secured assets, must approach the
14
CMM/DM by way of an application in writing, and on receipt
of such request, the CMM/DM must move into action in
right   earnest.   After   passing   an   order   thereon,   he/she
(CMM/DM) must proceed to take possession of the secured
assets and documents relating thereto for being forwarded to
the   secured   creditor   in   terms   of   Section   14(1)   read   with
Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act. As noted earlier, Section
14(2) is an enabling provision and permits the CMM/DM to
take such steps and use force, as may, in his opinion, be
necessary.
7.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that along with
insertion   of   sub­section   (1A),   a   proviso   has   also   been
inserted in sub­section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
whereby   the   secured   creditor   is   now   required   to   comply
certain   conditions   and   to   disclose   that   by   way   of   an
application   accompanied   by   affidavit   duly   affirmed   by   its
authorised officer in that regard. Sub­Section (1A) is in the
nature of an explanatory provision and it merely restates the
implicit power of the CMM/DM in taking services of any
officer subordinate to him. As observed and held by this
Court in the case of NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra),
the insertion of sub­section (1A) is not to invest a new power
for the first time in the CMM/DM as such. 
8. Thus, considering the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, it is
explicit   and   crystal   clear   that   possession   of   the   secured
assets   can   be   taken   by   the   secured   creditor   before
confirmation of sale of the secured assets as well as postconfirmation of sale. For taking possession of the secured
assets, it could be done by the “authorised officer” of the
Bank   as   noted   in   Rule   8   of   the   Security   Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 
8.1 However, for taking physical possession of the secured
assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the
secured creditor is obliged to approach the CMM/DM by way
of a written application requesting for taking possession of
the secured assets and documents relating thereto and for
being forwarded to it (secured creditor) for further action.
The statutory obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM is to
immediately   move   into   action   after   receipt   of   a   written
application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act from
the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such an
application is received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass an
order after verification of compliance of all formalities by the
secured creditor referred to in the proviso in Section 14(1) of
the SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that regard, to
15
take   possession   of   the   secured   assets   and   documents
relating  thereto  and   to  forward   the   same   to   the   secured
creditor at the earliest opportunity. As mandated by Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM has to act within the
stipulated   time   limit   and   pass   a   suitable   order   for   the
purpose of taking possession of the secured assets within a
period of 30 days from the date of application which can be
extended for such further period but not exceeding in the
aggregate,  sixty days.  Thus,  the  powers  exercised  by the
CMM/DM is a ministerial act. He cannot brook delay. Time
is of the essence. This is the spirit of the special enactment.
As observed and held by this Court in the case of  NKGSB
Cooperative   Bank   Ltd.  (supra),   the   step   taken   by   the
CMM/DM while taking possession of the secured assets and
documents relating thereto is a ministerial step. It could be
taken   by   the   CMM/DM   himself/herself   or   through   any
officer   subordinate   to   him/her,   including   the   advocate
commissioner  who  is   considered   as  an   officer  of   his/her
court.   Section   14   does   not   oblige   the   CMM/DM   to   go
personally and take possession of the secured assets and
documents relating thereto. Thus, we reiterate that the step
to   be   taken   by   the   CMM/DM   under   Section   14   of   the
SARFAESI Act, is a ministerial step. While disposing of the
application   under   Section   14   of   the   SARFAESI   Act,   no
element   of   quasi­judicial   function   or   application   of   mind
would require.  The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide
the correctness of the information given in the application
and nothing more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an
adjudicatory   process   qua   points   raised   by   the   borrower
against the secured creditor taking possession of secured
assets.    
9. Thus, in view of the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, more
particularly, Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the nature
of the powers to be exercised by learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate/learned District Magistrate, the High Court in the
impugned judgment and order has rightly observed and held
that   the   power   vested   in   the   learned   Chief   Metropolitan
Magistrate/learned   District   Magistrate   is   not   by   way   of
persona designata.”   
   
Thus,   the   powers   exercisable   by   CMM/DM   under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and
Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua
16
points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor
taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the
matter once all the requirements under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured
creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist
the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as
the documents related to the secured assets even with the
help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help
of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At
that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the
dispute between  the borrower and  the secured creditor
and/or between any other third party and the secured
creditor   with   respect   to   the   secured   assets   and   the
aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the
proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before
Debts Recovery Tribunal. Under the circumstances in the
present case no error has been committed by the High
Court in setting aside the order dated 27.08.2021 passed
by   the   designated   authority   keeping   the   application
pending   till   the   secured   creditor   initiates   the   legal
proceedings   for   eviction   of   the   tenant   cannot   get   the
17
possession   in   an   application   under   Section   14   of   the
SARFAESI Act. The High Court has rightly directed the
designated   authority   to   proceed   further   with   the
application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and to
dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 
6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court   in   the   case   of  Harshad   Govardhan   Sondagar
(supra) by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is concerned, the same shall not be applicable to
the facts of the case on hand, what is observed by this
Court in the aforesaid case is the DM/CMM has to give a
notice   and   opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   person   in
possession of the secured assets claiming to be a “Class (1)
or (2)” lessee of mortgagor/borrower, as well as to secured
creditor, consistent with principles of natural justice, and
then   take   a   decision.   In   the   said   decision,   it   is   not
observed that the DM/CMM has to adjudicate the rights
between the parties.
7. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of  Vishal   N.   Kalsaria  (supra) by the
18
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is
concerned, the said decision shall also not be applicable to
the facts of the case on hand. In the said decision, the
question before this Court was of conflict of claim under
the   Maharashtra   Rent   Control   Act,   1999   and   the
provisions   of   the   SARFAESI   Act,   and   which   law   will
prevail. The scope and ambit of the powers to be exercised
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were not directly in
question before this Court. Even as observed and held by
this Court in the aforesaid decision, a judgment cannot be
interpreted and applied to fact situations by reading it as a
statute. One cannot pick up a word or sentence from a
judgment to construe that it is the ratio decidendi on the
relevant aspects of the case (para 33). 
  
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we
are of the opinion that the High Court has not committed
any error in passing the judgment and order and directing
the   designated   authority   to   dispose   of   the   application
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. We are in complete
19
agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The
Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. 
   
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]
20

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर