Judgment · High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
willing to comply with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the Writ Petition. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has moved an Application for recovery of possession of the property in question, but no order has been passed as yet. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank has drawn our attention to Section 17(3) of the Act, which reads as follows:
If the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub- section (4) of Section 13 of the SRFAESI Act, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under and require restoration of the management of the secured assets to the borrower or restoration of possession of the secured assets to the borrower, it may by order, declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor as invalid and restore the management of the secured assets to the borrower, as the case may be, and pass such order as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourses taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of Section 13.
It is represented that the bank has decided to approach the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by filing an Application under Section 14(1) of the Act for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to take physical possession of the property. In view of the factual scenario, without going into the merits of the matter, we are of the opinion that since the matter is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to pass orders in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ----------------------- (G. CHANDRAIAH, J) 21st June 2010
..... REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER To
1) 2 CD copies
Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} 3rd August 2009
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Jun 2010. The bench was GHULAM MOHAMMED, G CHANDRAIAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.