Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh

Whether the District Magistrate is required to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while examining application filed by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 – M/s. Maa Kalika Bhandar and Others Vs. The Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha and Others – Orissa High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that if any person is aggrieved of any action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4), the remedy available to such person is to file an application before the DRT under Section 17. Still further, as per Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred which clearly indicates the intention of the legislature is to avoid conferring of parallel jurisdiction to other courts/authorities. Reading of Section 14 nowhere permits conferring of any power of adjudication or entitlement to determine inter-se rights upon the District Magistrate while examining application under Section 14. Therefore, as far as statutory provisions are concerned, they clearly do not support the contention of the petitioner that the District Magistrate should have afforded an opportunity of hearing especially when neither any adjudicatory functions are to be performed nor any right inter-se the parties are to be determined by the District Magistrate. The only remedy available with the petitioners is to challenge the action of the bank by filing of an application before the DRT under section 17 of the Act, 2002

Whether the District Magistrate is required to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while examining application filed by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 – M/s. Maa Kalika Bhandar and Others Vs. The Collector and District Magistrate, Khordha and Others – Orissa High Court Read Post »

Scope of exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities concerned, while examining an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Bajaj Finance Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ali Agency and Others – Orissa High Court

The following issues would arise for consideration in this case:-

i. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in view of the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002?

ii. Whether Chief Judicial Magistrate would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002?

iii. Scope of exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities concerned, while examining an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2002.

iv. Relief to which the petitioner would be entitled to in the instant petition

Scope of exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities concerned, while examining an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Bajaj Finance Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ali Agency and Others – Orissa High Court Read Post »

Whether it is mandatory for the Secured Creditor to effect personal service of the sale notice, apart from publication as provided under Rule 8 & 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002? – M/s. Morion Chemicals Ltd. Chandigarh and others Vs. UCO Bank Chandigarh and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Whether it is mandatory for the Secured Creditor to effect personal service of the sale notice, apart from publication as provided under Rule 8 & 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002? – M/s. Morion Chemicals Ltd. Chandigarh and others Vs. UCO Bank Chandigarh and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

Section 96 of the Code, 2016 cannot be made applicable for enforcement of a secured asset which does not belong to the personal guarantor on the date when such application is filed with the NCLT – M/s. Jamboree Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. District Magistrate, Gurugram and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Section 96 of the Code, 2016 cannot be made applicable for enforcement of a secured asset which does not belong to the personal guarantor on the date when such application is filed with the NCLT – M/s. Jamboree Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. District Magistrate, Gurugram and others – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

Whether the petitioner bank/secured creditor would be bound by an order passed by a Civil Court in a lis inter-se between parties pertaining to the secured asset, not having impleaded the Bank/Secured Creditor? – Allahabad Bank Vs. District Magistrate, Ludhiana and others – High Court of Punjab & Haryana

(1) Whether Civil Court would have jurisdiction to negate any right of the secured creditor under the Securitisation Act, 2002, qua the secured asset in a civil suit or proceedings instituted by the borrower/guarantor/any third party qua the secured asset?

(2) Whether the petitioner bank/secured creditor would be bound by an order passed by a Civil Court in a lis inter-se between parties pertaining to the secured asset, not having impleaded the Bank/Secured Creditor ?

(3) Scope of powers of the District Magistrate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2002 ?

Whether the petitioner bank/secured creditor would be bound by an order passed by a Civil Court in a lis inter-se between parties pertaining to the secured asset, not having impleaded the Bank/Secured Creditor? – Allahabad Bank Vs. District Magistrate, Ludhiana and others – High Court of Punjab & Haryana Read Post »

Scroll to Top