1 2025:CGHC:49146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5120 of 2025 Bank Of Baroda Through Authorised Officer, Shri Prahlad Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Deo Chandra Jha, Aged About 44 Years, Office At Bank Of Baroda, Regional Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate Manendragarh-Bharatpur- Chirmiri, District Manendragarh-Bharatpur-Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tehsildar Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Bharatpur- Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Manendragarh-Bharatpur-Chirmiri, District Manendragarh-Bharatpur-Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Bharatpur-Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh 6 - M/s R.F. Oil Industries Private Limited (Borrower Firm) (Wrongly Spelled As A.F. In Order Dated 29/11/2024) Office At Village Shankaragarh, Kelhari Road, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Bharatpur-Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh Also Office At Shop No. B-12, Ward No. 13, New Sabji Mandi Road, Joda Talab, Near Nagar Palika Building, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Bharatpur-Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Roshni Agrawal W/o Manish Agrawal (Director And Guarantor), R/o Near Sai Tiraha, Jhagrakhand Road, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Bharatpur-Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh 2 8 - Smt. Fatma Begum W/o Mohammad Rashid (Director And Guarantor), R/o Ward No. 12, Masjidpara, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Bharatpur-Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh 9 - Shri Pramod Shukla (Wrongly Spelled As Paramad In Order Dated 29/11/2024), Director, M/s R.F. (Wrongly Spelled As A.F. In Order Dated 29/11/2024) Oil Industries Privated Limited, R/o Sagar Land Mark, Block-B-313, Ayodhya Bypass, Bhopal, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 10 - Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh Director, M/s R.F. (Wrongly Spelled As A.F. In Order Dated 29/11/2024) Oil Industries Private Limited, R/o Village Semar, Police Station - Kelhari, District Manendragarh- Bharatpur-Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25.09.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with following reliefs: “10.1 That, the records pertaining to the proceedings before the respondents may kindly be called for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the Respondent No.2 to 5 to assist in granting the physical possession of the mortgaged properties of the petitioner bank, also to conclude the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, 2002, in Revenue Case No.202409330100019/B-121/2023-2024, with use of required force, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 2. As this Court is not deciding the rights of the parties and the petitioner has sought relief for direction to the Respondents No. 2 & 3 to grant possession of the mortgaged property of the land pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 2/District Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002'), this case is being heard without notice to the private respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a secured creditor. The private Respondents are debtors, their loan accounts became non-performing assets, pursuant thereto, the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, 2002 was initiated and thereafter, the proceeding under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 was filed before the Respondent No. 2/District Magistrate. The authority under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 considering the facts and circumstances of the case has passed an order on 29.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) directing the Respondent No. 3/Tehsildar to handover the vacant possession of the mortgaged property to petitioner. The memo is not issued, however, till date, the possession has not been handed over. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State contended that if for any reason, possession could not be taken, the order passed by the Respondent No. 2/District Magistrate will be complied with. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed along with the writ petition. 6. For ready reference, the proviso clause of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is reproduced as under : "1[Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorized officer of the secured creditor, declaring that- i. the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application; ii. The borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period; iii. the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub-clause (ii) above; iv. The borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount; v. consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a nonperforming asset; vi. affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the borrower, vii. the objection or representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower; vii. the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act: viii. that the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder had been complied with: 5 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 assets within a period of thirty days from the date of application.] [Provided [also] that if no order is passed by the 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.] Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated in the first proviso shall not apply to proceeding pending before any District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act.] [(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,- (i) to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto; and (ii) to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.] (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate [any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate) done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority." 7. The SARFAESI Act provides that when Section 14 proceeding is moved, the Officer shall, after satisfying the contents of the affidavit, shall pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets within a period of thirty days from the date of application and, if no order is passed within period prescribed for reasons beyond control, after 6 recording reasons in writing, shall pass order, but shall not exceed sixty days in aggregate. The SARFAESI Act further provides that the reasons shall also be recorded in the order for such extension. 8. The Bank has also preferred an OA before the DRT notices have been issued to the private respondents but they have chosen not to accept the notices issued by the DRT because of which the case before the DRT is still pending for adjudication and the amount is also not repaid by the borrowers. 9. In the case at hand, Respondent No. 2/District Magistrate has passed an order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) under Section 14 of the Act, 2002. However, as of now, around one year has already been lapsed. Perusal of the documents would show that the Respondent No.3/Tehsildar in compliance of the order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 2/District Magistrate has not issued memo for taking over the possession of the mortgaged property and further considering the provisions under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and the period prescribed therein, the writ petition at this stage is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents No. 2 & 3 to comply with the order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and conclude the proceedings after giving opportunity of hearing to respondents No.6 to 10, expeditiously, preferably within a period of ‘60 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant