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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...
Post a Comment
Read more