Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Collector and District Magistrate, while acting under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is bound to act only within the limited statutory parameters and conclude pending applications expeditiously.
Analysis: The jurisdiction under Section 14 is confined to verifying that the requisite notice under Section 13(2) has been issued and that the secured asset falls within territorial jurisdiction. No adjudication of the merits of the bank's claim is permissible at that stage. The remedy under Section 17 remains available to the borrower and third parties. In view of the repeated delays in the pending applications, the Collector was required to proceed in accordance with law and conclude the matters without undue delay.
Conclusion: The Collector must act in accordance with the limited scope of Section 14 and dispose of the pending applications expeditiously.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that directions were issued for timely disposal of the pending and future Section 14 applications by the concerned revenue authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: A District Magistrate acting under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 performs a limited, non-adjudicatory verification and must not delay disposal of the application beyond a reasonable time.