Skip to main content

Chief Judicial Magistrate Can’t Grant Time For Payment Of Debt Due To Secured Creditor

In Canara Bank v. Stephen John, the bank had assailed an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who granted 45 days’ time to debtors to pay Rs. 45 lakh to the secured creditor.

The Kerala High Court observed that there is no discretion whatsoever for the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising power under Section 14 and the power is conferred only for the regulation of matter as distinguished from a power to decide the rights of parties. If the scope of the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 is understood in this fashion, there is no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the power is only administrative and not judicial.

The court also took note of the amendment brought in which mandates that before rendering assistance to the secured creditor, it is obligatory for the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising power under Section 14 of the Act to satisfy that the secured creditor has made a declaration in the form of an affidavit as regards matters specifically mentioned in the first proviso to sub section (1) of Section 14.

On this aspect, the court observed that if the secured creditor does not file an affidavit declaring all the facts required to be declared in terms of the first proviso, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not obliged to render assistance to them. “The correctness, if any, of the declaration made by the secured creditor for the purpose of availing assistance under Section 14 of the Act is a matter for the Debts Recovery Tribunal exercising power under Section 17 of the Act to adjudicate upon, if raised,” the court added.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/chief-judicial-magistrate-cant-grant-time-for-payment-of-debt-due-to-secured-creditor-kerala-hc/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more