Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 21: In a caveat filed by Gravity Concrete Solutions Pvt. Ltd through its Director Janak Raj Gupta & Ors seeking hearing in the event of an application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act being filed by Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Branch Pantha Chowk, Srinagar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu – Amarjeet Singh Langeh held that caveat pertaining to Section 14 of SARFAESI Act is not entertainable in law.
While dealing with the arguments of Caveators that they have right to file caveat under section 18-C of the Act, the court noted “it is true that Section 18-C does vest a right in a Secured Creditor or any person claiming a right to appear before the Tribunal or the court of District Judge or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court as the case may be to lodge a caveat, but this right to lodge caveat is confined to the matters and the forum which are so conspicuously outlined in this section itself.”
He added: “Section 18-C therefore does not give any indication of vesture of any right to file caveat in any person, in particular the borrower – in respect of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.”
Court further noted that in terms of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, a Chief Judicial Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magistrate or a District Magistrate is approached by a Secured Creditor only to seek assistance in taking possession of Secured Assets and this section in no way gives any indication of any right to a borrower to lodge caveat.
Relying on the judgment of High Court of J&K in case titled “Rafiq Ahmad Wani & others. Vs. J&K Bank Ltd. & others”, court further observed that in an application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act filed by Secured Creditor, no opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the borrower before passing an order on said application. If even on filing of application under section 14, borrower has no right of being heard, for a borrower then to say that he has right to lodge Caveat pertaining to Section 14 of Act in question is an argument which is wholly devoid of merit and thus has no propitious prospects of being entertained.
With these observations, court held that instant caveat is without any authority of law, express or implied and therefore declined to entertain the same.
Follow our WhatsApp channel