The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's role under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is ministerial, prohibiting third-party applications under Section 340 CrPC.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 482 CrPC seeking quashing and setting aside of order dated 31.01.2024 passed by Ms. Neha Gupta Singh, CMM, North, District Court, Rohini, Delhi in the matter titled as “Mahesh Taneja Vs. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Ltd.” bearing Case No. 1374/2023 whereby orders dated 03.07.2023 and 19.01.2024 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter in short reproduced to as “the SARFAESI”) appointing a Receiver with a direction to take possession of the property i.e. “Ground floor built on property No.2650, measuring 160 sq. yards, situated at Hudson Lines, in the layout of plan of Redevelopment Scheme, of Kingsway Camp, Delhi -110009 (hereinafter referred to as „the subject property‟), was stayed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the Respondent No. 3 and other co- borrowers had approached the Petitioner herein to avail the credit facilities which was duly sanctioned by the Petitioner and a loan agreement dated 08.08.2014 was executed between the Petitioner and the borrowers. To secure the interest of the petitioner financial institution, the respondent no. 3

mortgaged the subject property with the petitioner by depositing the original title documents. The borrowers committed defaults in repayment of the said loan which led the petitioner to classify the borrowers‟ account as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 05.02.2017. The Petitioner thereafter, issued a notice dated under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon borrowers to pay the amount then outstanding with respect to the loan account. The borrowers failed to pay the outstanding amount within 60 days. 3. The Petitioner was constrained to approach the Ld. CMM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the subject property and preferred an application bearing No. 1055/2023 titled as „Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs. Geeta Rani & Ors.‟, which the Ld. CMM was pleased to allow vide order dated 03.07.2023 and a Receiver was appointed to take the physical possession of the subject property. Sequel to above, a possession notice dated 28.07.2023 was issued by the Ld. Receiver to the respondent no. 3 and other co- borrowers. The said notice was affixed outside the subject property. 4. The respondent No. 1 and 2, who are the third parties and are claiming to be the owner of the subject property, approached the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application dated 14.08.2023 filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 bearing S.A. No. 469/2023 titled as “Sh. Mahesh Taneja & Anr. Vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited” praying inter-alia, for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the petitioner in respect of the subject property. It was further prayed that the petitioner be directed not to initiate any proceedings in respect of the subject property. The said prayer was premised on the ground that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had purchased the subject property in a public auction carried out by the Syndicate Bank with regard to the said property to satisfy the Recovery Certificate and thereafter a sale certificate dated 20.09.2018 was issued by the Syndicate Bank in their favour. Subsequently, a sale deed dated 27.10.2018 was also registered in respect thereof.

5. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 also filed an application on 16.08.2023 before learned CMM seeking clarification of order dated 03.07.2023 to an extent that the subject property belongs to them and not to the respondent no. 3 as pleaded by the petitioner. Yet another application was filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the learned CMM on 18.08.2023 under Section 340 CrPC (CT No. 1374/2023) alleging concealment of fact that the subject property had been purchased by respondent nos. 1 and 2 by public auction in O.A. No. 437/2017 entitled „Syndicate Bank Vs. M