Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1291 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTPossession of mortgaged property - Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act - recovery by banks of amount due - existence of valid lease agreement or not - HELD THAT:- Learned Magistrate has not granted the protection to the Petitioners, pursuant to the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGAR VERSUS INTERNATIONAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD & ORS [2015 (11) TMI 1315 - SUPREME COURT] and thereafter passed an order under Section 14 of the said Act, where it was held that there is no provision in Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act that a lease in respect of a secured asset shall stand determined when the secured creditor decides to take the measures mentioned in Section 13 of the said Act. Without the determination of a valid lease, the possession of the lessee is lawful and such lawful possession of a lessee has to be protected by all courts and tribunals. The ratio of the judgment in the case of HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGAR VERSUS INTERNATIONAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD & ORS, more particularly law laid down, in paragraph 36 is binding on this Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, in our view, has rightly passed order under Section 14 of the said Act. The total amount due is more than ₹ 200 Crores. Amount due to the consortium banks is ₹ 1,000 Crores, out of which 60% amount may be adjusted, according to the Petitioners. Be that as it may. We are of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order - Petition dismissed.
|