2011 (8) TMI 973

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Solapur on 16 July 2010 dismissing an application under Section 14. 2. The Petitioner issued a notice under Section 13(2) to the Third and Fourth Respondents on 15 July 2009. The Third Respondent had taken a loan from the ICICI Bank for purchasing a house. The loan was secured by a mortgage of the immovable property in question, situate at Solapur. The Bank is stated to have assigned the debts and liabilities of the Third and Fourth Respondents to the Petitioner. Accordingly, by its notice dated 15 July 2009, issued under Section 13(2), the Petitioner called upon the Third and Fourth Respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 5.41 lakhs on 21 December 2009. The Petitioner informed the Third and Fourth Respondents that it would take possession o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in his jurisdiction; and (ii) Whether a notice of demand under Section 13(2) has been served on the borrower. In the present case, it was urged that admittedly the property is situated at Solapur within the jurisdiction of the Second Respondent. Moreover, it has been admitted that the notice under Section 13(2) was served on the Third and Fourth Respondents. 4. On the other hand, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Third and Fourth Respondents sought to rely upon the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Vijaya Bank v. Shameem Transport [2007] 137 Comp. Cas. 428/ 76 SCL 235 , and supported the reasoning contained in the impugned order. 5. The parameters of the jurisdiction that is exercised by the District Magis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s no adjudication of any kind at that stage. 4. It is only if the above conditions are not fulfilled that the CMM/DM can refuse to pass an order under section 14 of the NPA Act by recording that the above conditions are not fulfilled. If these two conditions are fulfilled, he cannot refuse to pass an order under section 14. 5. Remedy provided under section 17 of the NPA Act is available to the borrower as well as the third party. 6. Remedy provided under section 17 is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the third party as well as to the borrower where all grievances can be raised." 6. The impugned order of the Second Respondent has clearly transgressed the limitations on his jurisdiction. The Second Respondent has virtually e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n accordance with the law laid down by this Court, which is binding upon him. In failing to do so and in virtually entering upon the merits of the entitlement of the Petitioner, the Second Respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction. There is absolutely no dispute about the position that a notice under Section 13(2) was served on the Third and Fourth Respondents and that the secured asset is within the jurisdiction of the Second Respondent. Once these two facts were established, the Second Respondent could not have refused to pass an order under Section 14. 7. The Learned AGP has placed on the record of the Court, two letters addressed to the Second Respondent on 18 November 2010 and 17 January 2011 by the office of the Government Pleader req....