Order on Board

27/02/2025

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner/Bank is questioning the order dated 16.01.2025, by which, the proceeding on the application under Section 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act 2002’) has been concluded on the ground that the borrowers who have noticed in that proceedings undertakes and inclined to repay the loan.

2. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 14 of the Act, 2002 provides as under:-

“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—

(I) XXXXX (ii) XXXXX (iii) XXXXX (iv) XXXXX (v) XXXXX (vi) XXXXX (vii) XXXXX (viii) XXXXX (ix) XXXXX Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets1[within a period of thirty days from the date of application]

Provided further that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days.

(B) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above Section 14 of the Act, 2002 specifically provides that District Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate has to take possession of the mortgaged property under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and the maximum period under which is to be concluded is also prescribed provisions under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 that upon receiving request in writing, the District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents may be situated or found to take possession thereof.

(C) He further submits that Proviso under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 in clear terms provides that after receipt of the request within a period of 30 days proceeding is to be concluded and if for any reason beyond the control of the authority possession could not be taken, then the order has to be passed within such further period but not exceeding 60 days. Statutes provides the maximum period of 60 days under which order under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 is to be passed. Respondent No.2 without considering the provision under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 has fixed the case after more than two months which is in contravention of the provision under Section 14 of the Act, 2002.

(D) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the power under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 to the District Magistrate is only to direct the revenue authority to facilitate the bank for obtaining possession of the property in question i.e. secured/mortgaged property and the said application cannot be rejected on the ground that the borrower is ready to pay the loan amount or not. The District Magistrate is not having any power under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 to consider such type of prayer and hence, the District Magistrate has exceeds its jurisdiction by concluding the proceeding on the application