Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the legality of the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act"), pending before the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the respondent -State Bank of India (SBI) advanced a term loan of Rs. 24 crores to the petitioner. On account of failure on the part of the petitioner in payment of installments, the loan account was categorised as 'Non Performing Assets" (NPA). The respondent -SBI approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal") by way of original application for recovery of outstanding dues. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the respondent -SBI by way of an agreement entered into with the respondent No. 1 -Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (AARCL), assigned its entire financial assets pertaining to the petitioner -M/s. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Limited together with all rights, interests and guarantees in terms of Section 5 of the Act. The respondent -AARCL already stands substituted as the applicant in the proceedings before the Tribunal. However, during the pendency of the original application before the Tribunal, for recovery of the outstanding dues, the respondent -AARCL started parallel proceedings under Section 13 of the Act. After issuing the notice under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act, the respondent -AARCL made an application under Section 14 of the Act before the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer for taking over the possession of the secured asset and forward such asset to the secured creditor and authorise the Tehsildar/Police Officials to break open the locks if the premises is found locked and prepare inventory of the goods lying in the said property, after taking possession thereof. Hence, this petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the respondent -AARCL could not have initiated the parallel proceedings under the Act and therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Act is illegal. Learned counsel submitted that before passing any order in the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the action of the respondent -Bank in taking possession of the secured asset, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary.;