TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....J.: This intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 21st February, 2019 passed in W.P. No.7039 (W) of 2018. In the said writ petition, the appellant, who claimed to be in possession of the property, which is subject-matter of action under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 at the instance of the respondent- Bank, challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, dated 06.06.2017, in exercise of his power under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The appellant is not the borrower but the 8th respondent is the borrower, who has defaulted in repayment and the respondent-Bank has rightly proceeded against him under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, and they are ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the learned Single Judge and the order passed therein. Though such finding was recorded, the learned Writ Court was of the opinion that non-disclosure of the civil proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the case is not fatal to the application under Section 14 of the Act. Further, the Court observes that there is no material placed on record to suggest that, had the District Magistrate been apprised of the pendency of the suit or the order passed in the suit and in the appeal, he would not have passed the order dated June 6, 2017 and with the such observations, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal. As could be seen from the impugned order, learned Writ Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as well as the Division Bench of this Court. It is not for this Court to examine as to what the District Magistrate would have done, had all the orders been placed before it. It is up to him to take a decision, which undoubtedly should be in accordance with law. The appellant had initially obtained an order of interim injunction in O.S. No. 491 of 2010, by which the prayer for interim injunction was allowed, and the defendants which includes the respondent-Bank was directed to maintain status quo as regards themselves, and the plaintiff/appellant in the suit property on the date of the order as well as with regard to payment of monthly occupation charges of the rents to the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 5 till a particular date. Subsequently....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision Bench has observed that the appellant/plaintiff shall not be evicted from the premises in question except in due process of law. The question would be as to what is meant by due process of law in the facts and circumstances of this case. As observed earlier, it is for the District Magistrate to decide the same, and therefore, the Bank ought to have placed the order passed by the Division Bench before the District Magistrate before he could exercise jurisdiction under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that not placing the order passed by the Division Bench before the District Magistrate is definitely prejudicial to the interest of the appellant as the District Magistrate had no occasion to ....