The power of a designated magistrate under the recovery statute to facilitate possession of secured assets is purely ministerial, not adjudicatory. It requires no prior notice to debtors, no pre-registration hearings, and must be strictly concluded within the timeframes prescribed by the legislature to avoid frustrating the recovery process.

ORDER :

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, C.J.

The petitioner, who is an auction purchaser, has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to deliver and hand over the vacant possession of land and building situated at Villa No.75, “Palm Villas”, Nallambakkam Village, Chengalpet Taluk and District measuring an extent of 2578.1 square feet of undivided share of land in Survey No.150/1APart, 1B Part, 1C Part, 1D, 2 part, 3, 4, 157/6, 7, 8, 9, 201/7B part, 8, 9 part, 202/1 part, 2, 204/1A, 1B, 2 part, 7A, 7B, 8 part, 215/1, 2 part, 216/1, 2, 3, 217/1 part, 2 part and 218/1 part, (patta No.10872) admeasuring approximately 12.80 acres situated at Malrojapuram, Nellikuppam Road, Nallambakkam Village, Chegalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

2. The petitioner is the successful auction purchaser of secured assets sold by the respondent/bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for brevity, "the SARFAESI Act"). It is averred that despite the respondent bank having received the full sale consideration and issuing a sale certificate in favor of the petitioner on June 3, 2025, possession of the property has yet to be delivered to the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent/bank is not pursuing the application for taking physical possession and handing over the same to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/bank submitted that though an application has been filed by the bank in August, 2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, the same has till date not been numbered. He further contended that approximately 200 cases remain pending before the said Court for registration and disposal, thereby violating the time limits prescribed under the SARFAESI Act.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully gone through the materials placed before this court, including the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the affidavit filed in support thereof, and the relevant statutory provisions.

5. For ready reference and appreciation of the legal position, Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is reproduced hereunder:

“14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.—

(1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him—

(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and

(b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor:

Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that—

(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application;

(ii) the borrower has created security interest over various prope