2021 (7) TMI 1462 - HC - Indian Laws

Non-compliance with order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 by Tahsildar - HELD THAT - Whether due to the pandemic or otherwise several requests have been pending over the last couple of years and as is evident from this case even when orders are issued on such requests under Section 14 of the Act the officials downstream attach little or no importance to the same. A level of awareness must be created so that revenue officials and police officials understand the scope and importance of such provision and the directions issued by the authorities under Section 14 thereof. It is also possible in this case that because of the bifurcation or trifurcation of the districts the Tahsildar or the relevant police officials may not have given much importance to this matter. However the Tahsildar has to ensure that the assistance sought and as directed in the order dated April 3 2019 is made available to the petitioner herein with police assistance as indicated. If the Tahsildar Vandalur is also discharging the duties of the Tahsildar Chengalpattu such official should render the requisite assistance. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's grievance regarding non-compliance with order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by Tahsildar. Interpretation of Section 14 requirements for secured creditors. Importance of speedy possession and sale of secured assets. Lack of awareness and compliance by executive officials. Need for executive assistance in possession of secured assets.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the petitioner's complaint of non-compliance with an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by the Tahsildar. The court emphasizes the importance of executive officials understanding and fulfilling the requirements of Section 14 of the Act promptly. It highlights that upon receiving a request under Section 14, authorities must provide necessary assistance to the secured creditor for obtaining possession of the secured assets for liquidation without involving adjudication. The judgment underscores the significance of quick possession and sale of secured assets to unblock funds for circulation in the economy.

The court clarifies that under the Act of 2002, secured creditors are permitted to take possession of the security and proceed with the sale before any adjudication. It notes that the Act prioritizes the unblocking of funds held by borrowers for economic circulation. The judgment mentions the historical context of the Act's enactment following previous committee reports and the need for expeditious unblocking of funds, leading to the introduction of the Act in 2002.

Furthermore, the judgment stresses the need for executive officials to provide necessary assistance to secured creditors as requested under Section 14. It points out that the process under Section 14 is insulated from adjudication to ensure swift access to secured assets for liquidation. The court highlights the lack of importance attached by officials to orders issued under Section 14 and calls for creating awareness among revenue and police officials regarding the significance of complying with such provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment disposes of the case by directing the concerned Tahsildar and Superintendent of Police to provide the required assistance to the petitioner in line with the order issued by the Collector. It sets a timeframe for the provision of assistance and emphasizes the importance of compliance with such orders. The judgment underscores the need for executive officials to understand and act promptly on requests under Section 14 to facilitate the unblocking of funds and the liquidation of secured assets.