- (1.) The writ petitioner, a bank seeks directions on the respondent No. 6 to render the bank assistance with regard to its secured assets in terms of section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002). The writ petitioner approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under section 14 of SARFAESI ACT, 2002. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the Police Authorities to render help to the petitioner for taking possession by an order dated January 28, 2013. The writ petitioner made several representations to the Police Authorities for police assistance in terms of the said order. In spite of such representations, no police assistance was rendered. The writ petitioner thereafter made an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for executing the order dated January 28, 2013. By an order dated September 16, 2013, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected such application on the ground that it has become functus officio. The private respondent appears and opposes the prayer in the writ petition. According to the private respondent, the writ petitioner before me is guilty of suppression of material facts. The writ petitioner has suppressed material facts before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. According to the private respondent an order dated July 30, 2012 passed by this Court as also orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal were suppressed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the writ petitioner. The private respondent claims that, the writ petitioners and the officials of the writ petitioner No. 1 are guilty of forgery and that they ought to be proceeded against under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The private respondent has made an application being GA No. 3184 of 2013 to such effect.
(2.) In course of submissions I enquired of the private respondent as to any order in place passed by any Forum preventing the writ petitioner No. 1 from invoking the provisions of section 14 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002. After much submissions, it was ultimately conceded that there was no such order in place. Reference was made to various orders passed by the Writ Court as also by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on behalf of the private respondent. However, ultimately no order was placed and it was conceded that there was no such order restraining the writ petitioner from proceeding under Section 14 in respect of the property that the writ petitioner was seeking to proceed.
(3.) In course of submission on behalf of the private respondent it is submitted that, there are two accounts; one in the name of Mohan General Trading Company and the other in the name of Silpa Creation Private Limited. Reference was made to a sanction letter dated September 20, 2011 in respect of Silpa Creation Private Limited. Orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in diverse proceedings as also an order of this Court were relied upon.;