9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 433 - HC - Indian LawsOrder of SARFAESI Act - Held that - Order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction as provided under section 397 of the Code. This Court therefore finds that there is no error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which warrants interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by lower courts under SARFAESI Act and Code of Criminal Procedure - Maintainability of revision petition - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to Lower Court Orders: The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the SARFAESI Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner claimed that both orders were illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner highlighted the pending civil litigation before the Civil Court and argued that the lower courts did not consider this fact. 2. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned orders were illegal, contrary, and without jurisdiction. The counsel emphasized that the civil litigation was pending and that the petitioner had also filed an application before the Police Commissioner, which was not considered. The petitioner sought the quashing of the orders. 3. Contentions of Respondent No.2 Bank: The respondent No.2 Bank contended that it followed the prescribed procedure under the SARFAESI Act. The Bank issued notices to the principal borrower and guarantor, followed by publication in newspapers. The Bank argued that the revision under the Code was not maintainable as the SARFAESI Act proceedings were not criminal in nature. 4. Court's Analysis: The Court noted that the Bank followed the necessary procedures under the SARFAESI Act, including issuing notices and taking symbolic possession of the property. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court found that the revision petition was not maintainable under the SARFAESI Act provisions. 5. Judicial Precedents: The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in a similar case and highlighted that decisions under the SARFAESI Act could be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court also cited a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court, stating that a petition under section 482 of the Code was not maintainable. 6. Final Decision: The Court concluded that the order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code. It found no error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, including the challenge to lower court orders, contentions of the parties, court's analysis, judicial precedents, and the final decision of the High Court.
|
