(A) Can a secured creditor enforce a security interest invoking the provisions contained under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short, the Act), even after obtaining a recovery certificate from the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of the very same secured asset?

(B) Does a "borrower" under the Act lose such status if an order has been passed against him by the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the debt?

(C) Is a Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non Metropolitan area debarred from exercising the powers under Section 14 of the Act to take possession of the secured asset?

2. These and certain other ancillary questions have come up for consideration in this petition filed by a borrower/judgment debtor under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The petitioner had availed of a loan from M/s. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ernakulam Branch (for short, the Bank). It is not in dispute that the Bank had approached the debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam for recovery of the outstanding dues payable by the petitioner under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the RDDB Act). The Tribunal had passed an order in favour of the Bank and in fact issued a certificate of recovery as well. According to the petitioner the Recovery Officer had already initiated proceedings for sale of the property of the petitioner in execution of the certificate of recovery.

4. Anyhow, the admitted position is that the Bank filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam under Section 14 of the Act praying, inter alia, to take possession of the secured asset and to pass such other appropriate orders as provided under the Act for enforcement of the secured interest. Though the petitioner had stoutly opposed the above application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the prayer and directed the parties to submit a panel consisting of three names for the purpose of appointing an Officer to take possession of the schedule property. A copy of the said order which is impugned in this petition is on record as Annexure I.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the above application primarily for two reasons:

6. Firstly it is contended that Section 14 of the Act does not empower a Chief Judicial Magistrate to exercise powers contemplated under the above provision of the Act. Only a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate is vested with the power to take possession of a secured asset and documents relating thereto, if such a request is made by a secured creditor. The Chief Judicial Magistrate not being a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the application submitted by the Bank ought to have been rejected by the court below at the threshold itself. The second contention is that the debt Recovery Tribunal having passed a final order against him under Section 19 of the RDDB Act, the Bank could not have sought the assistance of the court in enforcing the secured asset as provided under Section 14 of the Act. Further, the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act would not also apply since the petitioner had ceased to be a borrower the moment the Tribunal had passed a final order under Section 19 of the RDDB Act.

7. But the above contention, in my view, is totally misconceived and untenable. It may be true that Ernakulam/Kochi has not been declared a Metropolitan area and therefore going by the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judicial Magistrates in Ernakulam are not designated as Metropolitan Magistrates. In every District (not being a Metropolitan area) there shall be a Chief Judicial Magistrate to be appointed by the High Court from among the Judicial Magistrates of First Class (Section 12 of the Code). If the area is declared as Metropolitan, the Judicial Mag