TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner a Multi-State Scheduled Co-operative Bank inter alia praying for enforcement of guidelines given by the State Government vide Circular dated 10th April 2023, and to follow Guidelines particularly appointing an Advocate as Commissioner to execute the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') as per the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15285 of 2022 (L&T Finance Limited versus State of Maharashtra), vide order dated 17th April 2023, and for issuance of Writ of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent no.3 forthwith and/or with such time as this Court may deem fit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ults committed by the borrowers in discharging their obligations towards repayment of the said credit facilities, the account of the borrowers was classified by the petitioner as Non Performing Asset (NPA), on 31st March 2022. The petitioner thereafter issued demand notice dated 5th September 2022 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, thereby calling upon the borrowers to repay an outstanding amount of Rs. 7,06,07,991.39 as on 17th August 2022 with further interest until payment/realization within 60 days from the date of the said notice. The said notice was duly served on the borrowers. So also, the demand notice was published in daily newspaper. Despite the notice, the borrowers neither discharged their liability within stipulated peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the payment under the settlement proposal, hence, the petitioner had no option but to approach the respondent no.3 for fixing the fresh date for taking the possession of the secured asset. However, the respondent no.3 informed the petitioner that since the time of the Writ of Commission has expired, he has to extend the said Writ of Commission from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. The officers of the petitioner, then, followed up with the respondent no.3 for execution of the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent no.3 thereafter informed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, is not extending the Writ of Commission on the ground that the validity of the order is only for 90 days and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured asset within the meaning of Section 14(1A) of the SARFAESI Act was considered and it was held in the said judgment that the CMM/DM had power to appoint an advocate Court Commissioner for executing the orders passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He submitted that the act of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, in not executing the order dated 28th February 2023 in time bound and expeditious manner is nothing but dereliction of their duties and contrary to aim and object of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He further submitted that the order passed on an application filed under Section 14 shall authorise the taking of physical possession of the secured asset with forc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2022)10 SCC 286 had occasioned to consider the issue regarding appointment of advocate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured asset within the meaning of Section 14 (1A) of the SARFAESI Act. After considering numerous provisions and judgments the Supreme Court held that the CMM/DM had power to appoint an advocate Court Commissioner for executing the orders passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The paragraph no.29 and 36 thus read as under:- 29. It is common knowledge that, in the respective jurisdictions, there is only one CMM/DM. If he is expected to reach at every location himself for taking possession, in some jurisdictions it would be impracticable, if not possible, for him to do so owing to large numbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is supplied) 11. In the present proceedings, the petitioner - financial institution has come up with a case that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, is not extending the date of commission on the ground that the validity of the order which commanded the Court Commissioner to take and deliver the possession of the secured assets to the authorised officer of the petitioner is only to be done within 90 days, and once this 90 days period is over, the petitioner would have to obtain a fresh order by refiling a Section 14 application. It is also further the case of the petitioner that in all such matters where within 90 days the order could not be executed, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, is directing parties to file a fr....