Gujarat High Court lambasts mamlatdar for 'inaction' over recovery of public money

  • | Sunday | 16th December, 2018

However, even after that, the mamlatdar refused to assist the bank. The counsel for the bank contended before the court that the mamlatdar refused to assist the bank in taking over physical possession of the mortgaged assets of the defaulting company despite several requests. Yes Bank had then clarified to the mamlatdar that under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, civil courts do not have any jurisdiction in a matter involving the Act. It also clarified that any delay at the end of the authorities concerned in this regard will be "viewed strictly". A private bank had to recently approach the Gujarat High Court after a mamlatdar in Patan district refused to assist the bank in taking over the property of a loan defaulting company, despite clear directions from the district collector way back in November 2017.

A private bank had to recently approach the Gujarat High Court after a mamlatdar in Patan district refused to assist the bank in taking over the property of a loan defaulting company, despite clear directions from the district collector way back in November 2017. The bank alleged that the dillydallying actions of the Siddhpur mamlatdar amount to aiding the loan defaulter in buying more time and he was doing so for "extraneous consideration". Notably, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, the district administration is supposed to assist a secured creditor like a bank to recover public money from loan defaulters by taking over their secured assets. The counsel for the bank contended before the court that the mamlatdar refused to assist the bank in taking over physical possession of the mortgaged assets of the defaulting company despite several requests. It was also submitted that on October 3, 2018, the mamlatdar finally wrote to the bank that due to the pendency of a case in the civil court, action will be taken only after it is decided. Yes Bank had then clarified to the mamlatdar that under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, civil courts do not have any jurisdiction in a matter involving the Act. However, even after that, the mamlatdar refused to assist the bank. Following the contentions raised by the bank, a single judge bench of the court came down heavily on the mamlatdar for not following the order passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by the district collector in November 2017. While setting aside the mamlatdar's communication to the bank dated October 3, the court clarified that civil suit filed by the defaulting company is not maintainable as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The court also directed the Patan collector to ensure that his subordinate officer acts promptly and execute his November 2017 order at the earliest. It also clarified that any delay at the end of the authorities concerned in this regard will be "viewed strictly". Next story AMC, AUDA responsible for Sabarmati pollution: Environmentalists

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


Stay updated with all the Ahmedabad Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.

Related Articles