SMT. SARITA SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-14
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (AT: JABALPUR)
Decided on January 05,2018

Smt. Sarita Singh Appellant
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VANDANA KASREKAR,J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 10/07/2017 and 22/08/2017 passed by respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.
(2.) The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Thakur Warehouse and for the purpose of construction of a warehouse, he approached to respondent No.3-bank. Respondent No.3-bank accordingly granted/sanctioned a term loan of Rs.1,06,39,000/- to the petitioner. For securing due repayment of the aforesaid term loan, guarantee agreements were executed by shri Govind Singh Thakur, Shri Amit Singh Thakur , Shri Aditya Singh Thakur and Shri Arjun Singh Thakur. In addition to the aforesaid, equitable mortgage of house property and also the land over which the warehouse is constructed was mortgaged. The said finance was availed by the petitioner under the Rural Godown Scheme of NABARD wherein 33% of the loan amount to be reimbursed by way of subsidy. However, the respondent-bank did not submit proper documents for claiming subsidy from NABARD. The subsidy was not timely claimed by the respondent-bank. On account of non- appropriation of the subsidy amount timely by the respondent-bank, the loan amount of the petitioner became irregularly and classified as non-performing assets by the respondent-bank.
(3.) The respondent-bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002') by issuing demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder on 01/07/2016. The petitioner has raised an objection to the said demand notice which was replied by the respondent-bank. Thereafter the respondent-bank has proceeded to take action under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 which action was assailed by the petitioner by filing a securitisation application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur which is subject matter of S.A. No.14/2017. Respondent No.3-bank thereafter filed application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said application. Thereafter respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 10/07/2017 for taking the physical possession of the property. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.