M/S.Sundaram Bnp Paribas v. The District Magistrate/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.03.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P. No.8294 of 2016 Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd.

represented by its Authorised Officer N. Udayakumar 46, Whites Road SF Towers I Floor Royapettah Chennai 600 014 ... Petitioner Vs.

The District Magistrate/District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pass orders on the petition filed on 09.10.2015 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and implement the same within a stipulated time.

For petitioner : Mr. K.J. Parthasarathy For respondent : Mrs. A. Srijayanthi Special Government Pleader

ORDER

(delivered by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.) Mrs. A. Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a petition before the respondent on 09 October 2015 under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act") seeking assistance to take over possession of the secured asset in furtherance of exercise under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. However, the respondent has not taken any step so far, when the object of the said provision is to extend assistance to secure possession of the secured asset, at the earliest. 3.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that a direction to that effect may be issued to the respondent.

4.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we direct the respondent to take up the matter and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is also directed to verify as to whether there is any tenancy or lease in respect of the secured asset and if it is so, the same has to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Others1 and Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank of India and Others2. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cad To The District Magistrate/District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram +1cc to Mr.K.J. Parthasarathy, Advocate, S.R.No.14354 W.P. No.8294 of 2016 BVR(CO) CA(18/03/2016) (2014) 6 SCC 1 2016 (1) Scale 472 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/