Court grants Petitioner's priority as secured creditor, upholds challenge rights, assures prompt hearing.

The court accepted the Respondent's counsel's assurance to address the Petitioner's representations promptly, granting a personal hearing. The court emphasized the Petitioner's priority as a secured creditor and upheld its right to challenge any unfavorable decisions by the Tax Recovery Officer. The petition was disposed of with all contentions left open for further review or challenge as needed, ensuring the Petitioner's concerns regarding the notices/orders of attachment were addressed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notices/orders of attachment by Tax Recovery Officer, Priority of secured creditor under SARFAESI Act, Disposal of representations made by Petitioner, Judicial review of Tax Recovery Officer's order.

Analysis:
The petition sought to set aside notices/orders of attachment issued by the Tax Recovery Officer concerning two office premises at Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai. The Petitioner claimed priority in debt recovery as a secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002. Despite various representations made by the Petitioner, the Tax Recovery Officer had not disposed of them, prompting the Petitioner to approach the court.

The court noted the Petitioner's representations, with the latest dated 30 August 2019, emphasizing its priority over the security interest. The Respondent's counsel assured that the representation would be addressed within four weeks from the current date after granting a personal hearing to the Petitioner. The court accepted this undertaking.

It was emphasized that if the Petitioner found the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer on its representation unsatisfactory, it had the right to challenge it in accordance with the law. The court disposed of the petition based on the assurance given by the Respondent's counsel, with all contentions being kept open for further review or challenge as necessary.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the immediate concern of the Petitioner regarding the notices/orders of attachment by ensuring the pending representation would be dealt with in a timely manner. The court upheld the Petitioner's right to challenge any adverse decision by the Tax Recovery Officer, thereby providing a legal recourse for judicial review if required.

---