Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited Through Its Authorised Officers v. The State Of Maharashtra Tahsildar And Others
2024:BHC-AUG:7965-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3646 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS Ms. Neha Kamble, AGP for the Respondent/State -- 75 WRIT PETITION NO. 3659 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS Mr. D. R. Korade, AGP for the Respondent/State -- 76 WRIT PETITION NO. 3660 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for the Respondent/State 77 WRIT PETITION NO. 3661 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS
Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for the Respondent/State 78 WRIT PETITION NO. 3662 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHER Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for the Respondent/State 79 WRIT PETITION NO. 3663 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the Respondent/State 87 WRIT PETITION NO. 3672 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS Mr. D. R. Korade, AGP for the Respondent/State 89 WRIT PETITION NO. 3674 OF 2024
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS Ms. Neha Kamble, AGP for the Respondent/State 90 WRIT PETITION NO. 3675 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for the Respondent/State 91 WRIT PETITION NO. 3676 OF 2024 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for the Respondent/State CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 10th April, 2024 PER COURT :- 1.
All these matters are identical. The Petitioners are the same financial institution. In all these matters, an order under section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act was passed by the District Magistrate. The direction to take over the physical possession of the property, was executed by the Tahasildar and the physical possession of all the mortgaged properties were handed over to the Petitioners, which is visible from the chart here below:- Writ Petition No.
Date Section 14 Date of possession by petitioner Date of Application to District Magistrate after order illegal dispossession WP/3660/2024 09.07.2020 11.02.2021 29.02.2024 WP/3661/2024 29.05.2019 25.06.2019 29.02.2024 WP/3662/2024 15.07.2019 18.09.2019 29.02.2024 WP/3646/2024 11.12.2019 08.02.2021 29.02.2024 WP/3676/2024 03.09.2019 13.02.2020 29.02.2024 WP/3675/2024 26.11.2019 18.09.2023 29.02.2024 WP/3659/2024 30.07.2020 29.09.2021 29.02.2024 WP/3663/2024 12.12.2020 14.03.2021 29.02.2024 WP/3672/2024 04.06.2019 17.07.2019 29.02.2024 WP/3674/2024 04.06.2019 24.07.2019 29.02.2024 2.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has taken instructions and submits that proper guards were not installed by the Petitioners to protect and guard the property after the physical possession was handed over to the Petitioners. In some cases, it was after two years and in some cases, it was after five years that the borrower has forcibly seized the property. Police complaints have been
lodged by the Petitioners and the police is also not assisting the Petitioners.
3.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits, on instructions, that in the facts and circumstances as noted above, the Petitioners would once again move an Application under Section 14 to the District Magistrate under the SARFAESI Act, to assist the secured creditor in taking position of the secured assets. 4.
We find that the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has concluded in M/s. Sri. Balaji Centrifugal Castings Vs. M/s ICICI Bank Limited, (2018) SCC Online, Hyd 368, that there is no bar to the secured creditor in maintaining more than a single application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act for securing the possession of the very same secured assets. A similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Kerala in A. A. Kumaran V. Superintendent of Police, Thissur and Ors. in WP(C) No. 5875 of 2022 dated 18/05/2022. The Division Bench of this Court has passed an order on 24th February, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 8674 of 2021 filed by Bank of Baroda Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., issuing directions to the District Magistrate to entertain the second application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 5.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the
Petitioners have already filed second applications with reference to each of these mortgaged properties, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 6.
In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions are disposed off with a direction to the District Magistrate to decide the applications within a statutory period of 30 days as is prescribed in law (Section 14). ( R. M. JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ssp