JUDGMENT :

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.

2. The seminal question involved in these appeals is: whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short “CJM”) is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “2002 Act”). There are conflicting views of different High Courts on this question. The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand have interpreted the said provision to mean that only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short “CMM”) in metropolitan areas and the District Magistrate (for short “DM”) in non-metropolitan areas are competent to deal with such request. On the other hand, the High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh have taken a contrary view of the same provision, to mean that it does not debar or preclude the CJM in the non-metropolitan areas to exercise power under Section 14 of the 2002 Act.

3. The earliest decision is of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Muh