The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalau made the observation on a plea moved by a borrower that the secured creditor approached two sets of authorities — District Collector, Tirupur and Chief Judicial Magistrate — instead of one with requests under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 for providing access to the secured property.

Further, pointing out it is alarming that such ridiculous matters are brought to court, the bench held: “It matters little that a secured creditor has carried requests simultaneously to the District Collector and the Chief Judicial Magistrate.” “Of course, it is not necessary to make more than one application. But merely because a second may have been erroneously made, it cannot prompt the borrower to rush to court as if such lapse absolves the borrower of the liability to discharge the debt or disqualifies the secured creditor from proceeding against the secured asset,” the bench held.

It also pointed out that it is shameful that such matters have to be addressed in courts and if a bit of discretion were to be exercised before these matters are filed in court, it might serve the system well. Based on the aspect that the borrower was unable to show that there was any prejudice caused owing to the bank making independent requests to two different authorities under Section 14, the bench dismissed the plea after imposing a cost of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the auction purchaser, who has been kept waiting by the borrower by failing to release the secured property to the secured creditor.