State Bank Of India v. M/S Meena Jewellers Exclusive Private Limited

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN + Writ Petition No.41778 of 2018 % Date: 20-11-2018 # State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch-II, D.No.3-4-1013/A, 1st Floor, TSRTC Kachiguda Community Amenity Centre, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500 027, Rep. by its Authorised Officer ... Petitioner Vs.

$ 1. M/s Meena Jewellers Exclusive Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, O/o 5-9-58/1, Shop No.201/A, Babukhan Estate, Hyderabad-500 029;

and 10 others (R.1 to R.11 are pro forma parties to the W.P.)

12. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad ... Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner:

Mr. Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondents: --- < Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

Nil.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition No.41778 of 2018 Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2002, the Bank has come up with the above writ petition.

2.

Heard Mr.

Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/Bank.

3. The order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, which is impugned in this writ petition, appears to be quite strange. Virtually, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has gone into the merits of the claim that the Bank has over the secured assets and the borrowers. The order reads more like an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal than an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act.

4. The scope of the investigation to be made on an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act is extremely circumscribed. Even after the amendment, the only requirement for the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is to satisfy himself about the contents of the Affidavit. He is not required to satisfy himself about the liability of the borrowers, the entitlement of the Bank to proceed under the Securitisation Act etc. Forgetting these fundamental principles, the learned Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate has gone into a roving enquiry. Therefore, the order requires to be set aside.

5. But, the remedy in this case for the Bank may be worse than the disease, if the impugned order is to be set aside and the matter remanded back. The liability of the respondents is stated to be more than Rs.200 Crores. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank sought permission to file a fresh application.

6. The dismissal of an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act is not a bar for the Bank to file a fresh application. When such a fresh application is made, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate should keep in mind his limited role under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act and perform the duty assigned to him keeping in mind the public interest involved.

7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner/Bank to file a fresh application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, so that the same can be disposed of by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, without reference to the observations made in the impugned order and keeping in mind the very limited role that he is obliged to play. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. ___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

_______________ J.UMA DEVI, J.

20th November, 2018.

Note:- Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for his personal attention. (B/o) Ak

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition No.41778 of 2018 (per VRS, J.) 20th November, 2018.

(Ak)