JUDGMENT :

Where a secured creditor who bid for the immovable property on its own behalf as permitted under Section 13(5A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and has purchased the property, can resort to Section 14 for taking over physical possession of the secured asset? Whether a secured creditor, who has bid for the secured asset, ceases to be a secured creditor after purchase of the immovable property? These are the legal questions arising for consideration in these writ petitions.

2. These writ petitions have been filed by the Authorised Officer of the People's Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Thrippunithura. The petitioner filed MC No.188/2021 and MC No.906/2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam invoking Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitions were filed to get assistance to obtain vacant possession of the property mentioned in the Schedule of the petitions.

3. The petitioner states that the properties were purchased by the Bank and the Authorised Officer is bound to give delivery of possession of the property to the Bank. The Authorised Officer is bound to handover delivery of the scheduled property as per Rule 9(6) of the Security Interests (Enforcement) Rules.

4. When the Bank approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to get assistance to obtain vacant possession of the secured assets, the Additional CJM rejected the petitions filed holding that the Bank is not a secured creditor any more and therefore the Bank is not entitled to invoke Section 14. The petitions filed by the Bank under Section 14 were dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, as per Ext.P2 orders.

5. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Magistrate erred in holding that the sale would be concluded as soon as the secured creditor emerged as a successful bidder. The counsel for the petitioner urged that the Magistrate ought not have attempted to adjudicate a legal issue. In the judgment in State Bank of India and another v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam and others [2021 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held that the statute does not contemplate an adjudicatory order to be passed by the Magistrate or to consider the application as in a judicial process. Ext.P2 order of the Magistrate is ultravires, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

6. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead through LRs and another v. Phoenix ARC Private Limited and others [2022 SCC Online SC 1299] to contend that a Chief Judicial Magistrate acting under Section 14 of the Act is discharging only ministerial functions (administrative) and should not venture to adjudicate the issues on legal merits. The counsel for the petitioner therefore urged that Ext.P2 order dated 29.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No.21857/2023 and Ext.P2 order dated 29.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No.21963/2023 be quashed.

7. Heard.

8. The counsel for the petitioner argued that while exercising powers under Section 14, a Magistrate is not discharging any judicial or quasi judicial functions and therefore the Magistrate ought not have ventured to adjudicate any legal issue. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in State Bank of India, TVM and another v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam and others [2021 (6) KLT 72], wherein this Court has held that the SARFAESI Act does not contemplate an adjudicatory order to be passed by the Magistrate or to consider the application as in a judicial process. The procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is part of a non-judicial process. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment in Roshan Narayanan C.S. v. Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India and another [2017 (4) KLT 1172], wherein this Court has h