Rajasthan High Court: Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. was hearing a petition on the issue pertaining to taking possession of the mortgaged property by the respondent bank.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Petitioners are guarantors against the loan taken by one Tej Prakash Singh.
The counsel for the petitioner Pawan Kumar Sharma argued that even after the repayment of the loan amount the respondent bank was taking the possession of the mortgaged property by declaring the account as a Non-Performance Account (NPA) and no reason had been provided for the same. Further, the counsel informed that a caveat that was filed before taking action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had not been considered and no right of hearing was offered before passing the impugned order. The counsel also prayed before the bench to provide them with the liberty to avail the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance.
High Court dismissed the writ petition by stating that it is not willing to interfere in the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which states that only District Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate has jurisdiction to assist a secured creditor in taking possession of a secured asset. It relied on the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 206 that a person has appropriate remedy provided to him under the SARFAESI Act in case if he has any grievance under Section 14 of the aforementioned act and also the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. [Ravinder Pratap Singh v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 3964, decided on 11-11-2019]