2009 (6) TMI 1004 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the Magistrate can decide on property exclusion u/s 31(i) of SARFAESI Act while considering application for assistance u/s 14.

Summary:
1. The Writ Petition challenges the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of an agricultural land under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, invoking exclusion under Section 31(i).

2. The respondent Bank asserts that the property was not cleared of liability despite opportunities, leading to the possession proceedings before the Magistrate's Court.

3. The petitioners argue that the property being agricultural land is excluded from SARFAESI Act's purview u/s 31(i), which the Magistrate should have considered before issuing orders under Section 14.

4. The petitioners did not disclose earlier proceedings before DRT, leading the respondent to argue for dismissal based on lack of clean hands.

5. The Magistrate's role u/s 14 is limited to determining if the property is a secured asset, not its nature. The petitioners' contention on agricultural land exclusion falls under the Act's purview, not the Magistrate's jurisdiction.

6. Citing precedents, the Court emphasizes that the Magistrate's role is confined to assisting in taking possession of secured assets, not deciding on exclusion under Section 31(i).

7. As the property is a secured asset, the Magistrate had no jurisdictional error in appointing the Advocate Commissioner. The Writ Petition is dismissed.