TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 482 petition dismissed for challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings as criminal powers don't apply to civil recovery matters</h1> <h3>M/s. Ranjith Electricals, K. Ravi Versus Reliance Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Chennai, T.R. Pandian Chennai, T.R. Mahadevan and T.R. Ellapan</h3> The Madras HC dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order that refused to stay proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI ... Maintainability of this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Challenge to order refusing to stay the order passed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 - this petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore dismissing the memo/application that was filed by the second petitioner to keep the order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in abeyance - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the order that was passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has not been put to challenge and that order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5693 of 2020, dated 22.12.2021 has become final. Maintainability of this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is a recognition of the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the code. The subsequent clauses namely to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice, must be necessarily read ejusdem generis to the main requirement which is to give effect to any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence the matter that is placed before the Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C., must be relatable to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences falling out of it. In the case in hand, the subject matter of the challenge before this Court is not even the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is only the subsequent order passed by the Court below refusing to keep the order passed under section 14 of the Act in abeyance, that has been put to challenge in this Criminal Original Petition. Even assuming that the order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is put to challenge, the same will not be maintainable under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The order passed under the SARFAESI Act will not fall within the requirement of section 482 of Cr.P.C., and hence a petition challenging the said order cannot be maintained. The Hon'ble Apex Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA VERSUS SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS [2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT] and KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2011 (2) TMI 1277 - SUPREME COURT], has deprecated the practice of entertaining any petition before the High Court as against the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act in view of the alternative remedy that is available under the SARFAESI Act. This is yet another reason as to why the petitioner cannot sustain the present petition before this Court. Since this Court has held that the very petition that has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the other issues that have been raised on merits and regarding the administrative control of the administrator on the clusters belonging to the Reliance Capital Limited. It is not necessary to render any findings on these issues. This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Issues:Challenge to order under SARFAESI Act, Maintainability of petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Availability of alternative remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, Administrative control of administrator on business clusters.Detailed Analysis:The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners contested the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, seeking to stay the possession of secured assets. The first issue addressed is the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court highlighted that the power under Section 482 is to give effect to orders under the Cr.P.C., and a challenge to the SARFAESI Act order does not fall within its purview. The petitioners sought to keep the SARFAESI Act order in abeyance, which was dismissed by the lower court, leading to the present petition.The court emphasized that the challenge was not against the SARFAESI Act order but the refusal to keep it in abeyance. Additionally, the judgment discussed the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing that filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not permissible when an alternative remedy exists. The court ruled that challenging the SARFAESI Act order through a Section 482 petition is not maintainable, citing precedents and the legislative intent behind the SARFAESI Act.Furthermore, the judgment addressed the argument regarding the administrative control of the administrator over business clusters related to the petitioner. The court declined to delve into this issue as the primary focus was on the maintainability of the petition. The court referenced judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the SARFAESI Act's provisions and utilizing the remedies provided therein.Ultimately, the court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, stating that since the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was deemed not maintainable, there was no need to address the other raised issues. The judgment concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petition, thereby resolving the matter at hand based on the legal principles and precedents discussed throughout the analysis.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
