1 / 4 2025:CGHC:2640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 256 of 2025 1 - ICICI Home Finance Company Limited Through Its Authorized Officer Gaurav Mishra S/o Shri Mohan Lal Mishra Aged About 33 Years Having Its Corporate Office ICICI HFC Tower, J.B. Nagar Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400059 Maharashtra ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The District Magistrate, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Durga Verma R/o Ward No. 9, Parvati Nagar, Gudiyari, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 4 - Kuleshwar Singh Verma R/o Ward No. 9, Parvati Nagar, Gudiyari, Raipur District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer 2 / 4 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to withdraw the decision of issuing the notice to the borrower and to proceed in accordance with Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act of 2002’), assisting in providing rightful possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioner bank within the stipulated period of 30 days as prescribed under the Act of 2002. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no requirement of issuance of notice to the borrower under the said Act and hence issuance of notice is contrary to the provision prescribed under the Act of 2002. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that issuance of notice cannot be stated to be illegal as the authority concerned/ respondent No.2 has to assist in providing rightful possession of the mortgaged property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and verification of the contents of application made by the petitioner bank can only be done by issuance of notice and hence there is no illegality in issuance of notice. He further submits that on various occasions, there was no representation made by the petitioner bank and for which the matter was adjourned by the respondent authority on various dates. 3 / 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is an enabling provision to the secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets. Relevant portion of Section 14 of the Act, 2002 is extracted below for ready reference:- "14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.-(1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him-- (i) xxxxx (ii) xxxxx (iii) xxxxx (iv) xxxxx (v) xxxxx (vi) xxxxx (vii) xxxxx (viii) xxxxx (ix) xxxxx Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets1[within a period of thirty days from the date of application] Provided further that if no order is passed by the 4 / 4 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days. 6. Third Proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act, 2002 specifically provides for the period under which District Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate has to take possession of mortgaged property subject matter of the application under Section 14 of the Act, 2002. The maximum period under which is to be concluded is also prescribed. Provision under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 also talks that upon receiving request in writing, the District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found to take possession thereof. 7. As far as issuance of notice is concerned, the District Magistrate, Raipur has rightly issued notice to verify the contention raised by the petitioner bank and there is no illegality in issuance of the notice. 8. For the forgoing reasons and considering the provision under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2/ District Magistrate, Raipur to conclude the proceedings and pass an appropriate order in accordance with Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar