Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Punjab National Bank

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.5649 OF 2015 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents invoking the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Finan Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'Surfaesi A and in issuing a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act on 08.12.2010. The o of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, in Crl.M.P. No.21 of 2 dated 28.01.2014, is also questioned as being illegal and without jurisdiction The facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner herei Government of India public sector undertaking, was granted lease of the sub property, for a period of 30 years, by the 6th respondent on 01.04.1999.

registered lease deed was executed on 25.01.2000. The subject property w mortgaged by the 6th respondent with the 1st respondent bank more than se years thereafter on 23.01.2007. The total extent of land, given on lease to petitioner herein, is 2068.93 square yards out of the total extent of the secu asset of Ac.68.27 guntas.

Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would sub that no notice was given to the petitioner under Section 14 of the Surfaesi Ac terms of Section 2(Zf) "security interest" means the right, title and interest of kind whatsoever upon the property created in favour of any secured cred and includes any mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment other t those specified in Section 31; and, in terms of Section 31(e), the provision the Surfaesi Act do not apply to a lease.

While fairly stating that no notice was issued to the petitioner by the C Judicial Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, before orders were passed in Crl.M.P.2 2014 dated 28.01.2015, Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, Learned Standing Coun for the 1st respondent bank, would contend that the extent of land, of which petitioner was granted lease, is only 2068.93 square yards and, while this

of the land mortgaged by the 6th respondent cannot be put to auction unless petitioner is heard before an order is passed under Section 14, the respondent bank is entitled to proceed with the auction for the remaining ex of land from out of the mortgaged property of 68.27 acres. In view of the submission now made by the Learned Standing Coun the notice issued both under Section 13(4) of the Surfaesi Act da 08.12.2010, and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahabubnaga Crl.M.P. No.21 of 2014 dated 28.01.2015, to the extent it relates to the l given on lease to the petitioner of an extent 2068.93 square yards, is set asi The 1st respondent is entitled to proceed and put the remaining extent of mortgaged property to sale in accordance with law.

It is made clear that order shall not preclude the 1st respondent from filing an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 after impleading the petitioner he as a party to the said application; and, thereafter, to take action in accorda with law. Needless to state that it is always open to the petitioner herein to ra all such contentions as are available to them in law, including that the lan property given on lease to them cannot be put to sale in view of Section 2 read with Section 31(e) of the Surfaesi Act. The competent authority s consider all such contentions, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by observations in this order.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The miscellaneous petiti pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J Date: 10.03.2015 MRKR