The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 14(3) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which precludes any act of the CMM done in pursuance of this section from being called into question in any Court or before any authority.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition is filed inter alia to challenge the order dated 11.7.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge, presiding in Court No. 30, in the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, at Mumbai by which the learned Sessions Court after hearing the Misc. Application for staying the order dated 5.4.2019 which was impugned before it for revision, on the point of jurisdiction alone, dismissed the entire Revision Application filed by the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that, Respondent-Bank and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, borrowers without the knowledge of the petitioner seems to have mortgaged the property of the petitioner for the purpose of securing the loan that the Respondent Bank had disbursed to Respondent No. 3 and 4 and in furtherance of the same, certain officers of Respondent Bank as well as the borrower entered into some kind of understanding to use the documents pertaining to the property of the petitioner without the knowledge of the petitioner for the purpose of disbursing loan.

3. It is further the case of the petitioner that, an exparte order has been obtained by the Respondent Bank from the learned CMM against the petitioner's property. The petitioner was not aware at all about the said proceedings. The petitioner learnt of the same only when the Respondent Bank came with the police and dispossessed the petitioner from the petitioner's property. It is further the case of the petitioner that, perusal of order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the said Court would make it crystal clear that, there is no direction or order to the petitioners and her son. Therefore, there is no question of breach of any direction contained in the order dated 18.12.2017. Therefore, no contempt would lie against the petitioner and therefore, learned CMM had no jurisdiction to entertain the contempt petition.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, being aggrieved by the order passed by learned ACMM, petitioner filed revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, however, said revision has been rejected observing that, revision is not maintainable. Hence this writ petition.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Mathews Nedumpara a/w. Amritpal Singh appearing for petitioners submits that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the order dated 18.12.2017, valid or invalid, has been executed and therefore the Ld. CMM acting under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) had become functus officio. It is submitted that, the phrase functus officion means “having performed his or her office”, which in turn means that the public officer is without further authority or legal competence because the duties and functions of the original commission have been fully accomplished. It is further submitted that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the aforesaid order has been executed and therefore the Ld. ACMM has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the contempt petition or pass any order in the same matter in a second time. The petitioner was, although not issued notice in the original proceedings and was summoned in the contempt application in complete breach of law. However, petitioners filed a reply in said contempt petition. It is submitted that, the Court Commissioner issued a letter dated 9th July 2019 to the Inspector of Police, concerned Police Station, Mumbai, for dispossessing the petitioners of their only residential premises on 31.07.2019 at 11.00 am. The order passed under Section 14 of the said Act, is essentially an administrative order. The violation of that order by any manner cannot be remedied by either a contempt of court proceedings or by the Magistrate himself trying the violation of an Administrative order, by holding a judicial hearing. Any violation of an administrative order can only be remedied by taking recourse to the spe