TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led as "Act of 2002") against respondent No.1 - M/s. Precious Enterprises Private Limited. It is an admitted fact that M/s. Precious Enterprises Private Limited had taken loan from the petitioner-bank and the respondent Nos.2 to 5, namely Ballabh Das Jhalani, Smt. Rajani Jhalani, Suresh B. Jhalani and M/s. G.B. Impex stood as guarantors. After filing of the application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, Ballabh Das Jhalani expired on 08.06.2014. District Magistrate, Jaipur, in its impugned order dated 02.07.2014, ordered that the legal heirs of the respondent No2 - Ballabh Das Jhalani are required to be impleaded as party by the petitioner/bank. Mr. S. Kasliwal, ld. Senior Counsel, ably assisted by Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, appearing for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n favour of Suresh B. Jhalani is subject matter of a civil suit and in another suit, Suresh B. Jhalani has been restrained not to alienate property mortgaged with the petitioner-bank. However, Mr. Chirania, ld. counsel, has very fairly admitted that the petitioner-bank is not party to the suit in which Suresh B. Jhalani has been restrained. Mr. Kasliwal, ld. senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-bank, has relied upon case of Tensile Steel Ltd. & another Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Others, reported as A.I.R. 2007 Gujarat 126, to contend that Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is in the nature of executing order and, thus, Section does not contemplate notice to borrower /guarantors at the time of deciding of application under Section 14 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made without complying with natural justice. I am afraid, the contentions do not impress me at all. The scheme of the SARFAESI Act, as explained in Mardia Chemicals (supra), Transcore (supra), V. Noble Kumar (supra) and other decisions, is that it is intended to facilitate quick recovery of secured debts without extending any opportunity of hearing to a borrower and without judicial/quasi-judicial intervention till such time possession of the secured asset is taken by the secured creditor after serving the requisite notices and responding to the objection/representation that may be lodged/preferred by the borrower under section 13 (3A). That Mardia Chemicals (supra) and Transcore (supra) are pre-section 14 amendment decisions, make no diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 55. One cannot lose sight of the fact that constitutionality of section 14 in its original form had been upheld in Mansa Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The legislature, however, felt the need to amend section 14, may be for reasons indicated by me in paragraph 53 supra. If it were the intention of the legislature to extend opportunity of hearing to a borrower before the CMM/DM, it was free to do so. Advisedly, the legislature did not do so, for, it would have militated against the scheme of the SARFAESI Act and more particularly section 13 thereof. It is implicit in the scheme of the SARFAESI Act that natural justice only to a limited extent is available and not beyond what is expressly provided. There seems to be little merit in the arg....