Jharkhand High Court
Cholamandalam Invest & Finance Company … vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The … on 3 March, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.62 of 2025
-----
Cholamandalam Invest & Finance Company Ltd., a company
having its Head Quarter at Chola Crest, C54-55, Thiru-Vi-Ka
Industrial Estate, P.O. & P.S.-Guindy, Dist-Chennai, State-
Tamil Nadu, one of its branch at Pinnacle Hotel, opposite
Civil court, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi through its
authorized representative Sri Ranjeet Singh, S/o Ram Singh,
R/o Bhatia Basti, Near Sai Mandir, P.O.-Adityapur, P.S.-
Adityapur, District-Seraikela-Kharsawan.
………. Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh.
3. Yogesh Kumar Puran, S/o Puran Saw, R/o 14 Parsotiya,
near Shiv Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
4. Ato Devi, D/o Puran Saw, R/o 14 Parsotiya, near Shiv
Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
5. Tulavati Devi, D/o Puran Saw, R/o 14 Parsotiya, near Shiv
Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
6. Pooja Jal, D/o Puran Saw, Birsa Chowk Chaha, Jail Road,
P.O., P.S. & District-Ramgarh.
………. Respondents.
—–
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
—–
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I
—–
Order No.06 Date: 03.03.2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of
direction upon the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy
Commissioner, Ramgarh to forthwith dispose of the
application preferred by the petitioner under Section 14 of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act, 2002“).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies
Act and is one of the leading non-banking financial
institutions registered with RBI. It has been engaged in
the business of financing for purchasing of vehicles/houses
by providing financial assistance to different companies,
body corporates and private individuals.
3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 is the
borrower and the respondent nos. 4 to 6 are co-
borrowers, who had applied for loan for the purpose of
enhancement of their business to the tune of
Rs.20,10,000/- & Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner-
company. The said loan was sanctioned to the said
applicants on their acceptance of the terms and conditions
mentioned in the sanction letter dated 20.08.2024. The
applicants (the private respondents), however, defaulted
in repayment of loan and accordingly, the concerned
accounts were classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA)
on 05.09.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner served a
demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 dated 07.09.2023 through registered post to the said
private respondents and the same was also published in
the newspapers as per the provisions of law.
4. The private respondents having not responded to the
notice served to them under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner served notice under
Section 13(4) of the said Act read with rule 8(1) of the
-2-
W.P. (C) No.62 of 2025
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to the private
respondents through registered post as well as published
the same in the daily newspapers on 08.02.2024. Despite
that, the private respondents did not co-operate the
petitioner in taking possession of the property in question
(i.e., the land appertaining to Khata No.51, Plot No.2244,
Thana No.82, Mouza-Ramgarh Cantt., District-Ramgarh,
measuring an area of 4 decimals), which was pledged with
the petitioner as equitable mortgage at the time of
sanction of the loan. Under the said circumstance, the
petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 2
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on
30.09.2024, which was registered as RCMSON24085774.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.
2, instead of disposing the said application expeditiously,
has still kept the same pending without passing any
effective order, which has compelled it to prefer the
present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of “Balkrishna Rama Tarle (Dead) through legal
representatives and another Vs. Phoenix Arc
Private Limited & Ors.” reported in (2023) 1 SCC
662, paragraph-16 of which reads as under:
“16. The statutory obligation enjoined upon the
CMM/DM is to immediately move into action after-3-
W.P. (C) No.62 of 2025
receipt of a written application under Section 14(1)
of the SARFAESI Act from the secured creditor for
that purpose. As soon as such an application is
received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass an order
after verification of compliance of all formalities by
the secured creditor referred to in the proviso in
Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act and after being
satisfied in that regard, to take possession of the
secured assets and documents relating thereto and
to forward the same to the secured creditor at the
earliest opportunity. As observed and held by this
Court in NKGSB Coop Bank Ltd. V. Subir
Chakravarty, the aforesaid act is a ministerial act. It
cannot brook delay. Time is of the essence and this
is the spirit of the special enactment.”
6. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 is under
statutory obligation to assist the petitioner-company i.e.,
the secured creditor in taking possession of the security
assets. The exercise under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002 was to be completed by the respondent no. 2
within a period of 30 days from the date of the application
which, in the given circumstance, could not have exceeded
the period of 60 days in aggregate. Keeping the said
proceeding pending for unlimited period frustrates the
provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Under the said
circumstance, the respondent no. 2 may be directed to
conclude the proceeding under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 without any further delay.
7. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I appearing on behalf of
the respondent nos. 1 & 2, submits that there is no
dispute with respect to the mandate of Section 14 of the
-4-
W.P. (C) No.62 of 2025
SARFAESI Act, 2002 and hence, if the proceeding in
question has not yet been concluded by the respondent
no. 2, the same will be concluded without further delay.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping
in view the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of “Balkrishna Rama Tarle”
(supra), the respondent no. 2 is directed to expedite the
proceeding in question and to conclude the same as soon
as possible and not beyond the period of 30 days from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid
direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Vikas/
-5-
W.P. (C) No.62 of 2025
[ad_1]
Source link