SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 679

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
M/S R.D. Jain and Co. - Appellant
Versus
Capital First Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2022
Decided On : 27-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Khushboo Vinodray Malkan, Alok Kumar, Dharita P. Malkan, Nandini Chhabra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Shwetal Shepal, Advocates.

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and Additional District Magistrates can exercise the powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Headnote:SARFAESI Act - Interpretation of Section 14 - The court discussed the powers and duties of the District Magistrate (DM) and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the DM and CMM are not persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 and that the expression "District Magistrate" and "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" includes Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The court relied on the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and previous judgments to support its interpretation. The court also noted that the powers exercised by the DM and CMM under Section 14 are ministerial in nature and do not involve quasi-judicial functions. The court overruled contrary views taken by other High Courts and held that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and Additional District Magistrates can exercise the powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Fact of the Case:

The borrower challenged the interpretation of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the High Court, which held that the DM and CMM are not persona designata and that the expression "District Magistrate" and "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" includes Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the interpretation of the High Court and held that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and Additional District Magistrates can exercise the powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi:

The powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be exercised by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and Additional District Magistrates. Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the interpretation of the High Court.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The powers under Section 14 can be exercised by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and Additional District Magistrates. (!) (!) - District Magistrate and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are not persona designata for Section 14; these expressions include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for Section 14 purposes. (!) (!) (!) - The actions under Section 14 are ministerial and do not involve quasi-judicial functions; delegation to or by Additional officers is permissible to ensure expeditious disposal. (!) (!)

What is the power and designation status of District Magistrates and Chief Metropolitan Magistrates under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act?

What is the scope of applicability of the Additional District Magistrates and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to exercise powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act?

What is the rationale for treating the expressions "District Magistrate" and "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" to include their additional counterparts for Section 14 purposes?


JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1961/2017, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court while interpreting Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act”) has held that (i) the District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; (ii) the expression “District Magistrate” and the “Chief Metropolitan Magistrate” as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:-

2.1 That respondent No. 1 herein – Financial Institution – Capital First Limited is the secured creditor (hereinafter referred to as the “secured creditor”) within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zd) of the SARFAESI Act. That the secured creditor instituted proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the amount due and payable by the appellant herein – borrower. The said proceedings initiated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor proceeded to take possession of the secured asset. However, the borrowers refused to handover the physical possession of the secured asset. The secured creditor took symbolic possession of the secured asset on 21.01.2017 and affixed the possession notice at the said secured asset. That on 17.03.2017, the secured creditor filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act with the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, inter-alia, praying for assistance from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in taking physical possession of the secured asset. The matter was adjourned from time to time and lastly, it was adjourned to 29.07.2017. As mandated by second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the application was required to be disposed of within a period of 30 days and as the application was not decided within the period mandated by the statute, the secured creditor moved an application for advancement. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, inter-alia, on the ground that the said application is a fresh application and many old applications are pending. Therefore, the secured creditor approached the High Court by way of the present writ petition for an appropriate direction and order directing the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to dispose of their cases/applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in a time bound manner.

2.2 That the Division Bench of the High Court issued directions to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to make an endeavour to dispose of the pending applications as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of writ along with the order. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide communication dated 14.08.2017 brought to the notice of the High Court that, “Even though, the SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides for expeditious disposal of the applications filed under Section 14 of the said Act, there are as many as 924 cases pending under the said Act as on 09.08.2017 on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai. Out of 924 cases, 509 cases are filed in the year 2017. However, there are 27 cases of the year 2014, 96 cases of the year 2015 and 291 cases of the year 2016, still pending for disposal. As per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, preference should be given to the old pending cases for disposing of the same. Therefore, the preference is being given to the pending old cases rath


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top