Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 2081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
Tristar Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Thro. Arpit Arun Mehra - Applicant
Versus
Indian Bank (E-Allahabad Bank) & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 4793 of 2025
Decided On : 24-09-2025
For the Applicant : Arjun R. Sheth
For the Respondents: Ms Shruti Pathak, APP, Ritesh D. Patadia.
Designation errors in judicial orders do not invalidate jurisdiction if the authority exists under law; procedural defects are permissible as long as they do not cause prejudice.
Headnote:(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 and 14(1A) - Jurisdiction of civil judges in applications under SARFAESI Act - Learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge acted beyond jurisdiction in appointing a Court Commissioner for possession under SARFAESI Act; however, designation error does not invalidate the order as the officer held dual roles. (Paras 3-24)
(B) Procedural Defects - Mistakes regarding judicial designations in orders should not prejudice parties; minor procedural lapses do not render orders void if authority exists under law. (Paras 19-23)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, operating a multi-specialty hospital, sought to quash an order allowing another party to take possession of its property based on claims of jurisdiction error due to designation in the order.
Findings of Court:
The court found no jurisdictional error that warranted interference in the Magistrate’s order for taking possession under the SARFAESI Act.
Issues: Whether the learned Civil Judge had jurisdiction to issue orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and if the use of the term 'Court Commissioner' invalidates the order.
Ratio Decidendi: Improper designation in judicial orders does not nullify the authority exercised by the courts; the officer’s powers to act under the SARFAESI statute were intact despite denomination errors.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of an impugned order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on jurisdictional error (Para 3) |
| 3. respondent's defense and jurisdiction argument (Para 4) |
| 4. discussion on maintainability of petition (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. interpretation of section 14 of sarfaesi act (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. nature of powers under section 14 of sarfaesi act (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 7. appointment of court commissioner within legal framework (Para 12 , 13) |
| 8. no jurisdiction loss due to designation error (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 9. procedural lapses not affecting substantial rights (Para 17 , 18) |
| 10. principle of not allowing procedural errors to hinder justice (Para 19 , 20) |
| 11. court's inherent power to correct errors (Para 21 , 22) |
| 12. writ petition maintainability given alternate remedies (Para 23 , 24) |
| 13. final decision to dismiss the petition (Para 25) |
ORDER :
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
1. By way of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4251 of 2025 (Annexure-A), and further to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 18.03.2025 issued by the Court Commissioner, Ms. Jyoti Patel, seeking to take possession of the properties mentioned therein (Annexure-B).
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat in CRMA J No. 4251 of 2025 is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as a Civil Judge has no role to play in an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that the learned court has erroneously appointed a “Court Commissioner” under Section 14(1-A) of the Act, though no such position is contemplated either under the SARFAESI Act or under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Consequently, the person so appointed operates in a sphere unknown to law. Pursuant to the said order, a notice dated 18.03.2025 has been issued by one Ms. Jyoti V. Patel in her capacity as alleged Court Commissioner, seeking to take possession of the secured property on 06.04.2025 at 8:00 a.m., which property in fact belongs to and is being operated as a fully functional multi-speciality hospital of the petitioner.
3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a company registered as an MSME under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, owning and operating. Tristar Hospital, a multi-speciality hospital at Surat with about 108 beds, providing essential and life-saving medical services to the citizens of Surat and South Gujarat. The hospital annually undertakes approximately 600 cardiac procedures, more than 6000 dialysis procedures, and over 3000 critical care cases, apart from providing services under the PM Yojana scheme. It is further submitted that several employees of the hospital belong to marginalised sections of society, including women and single mothers, whose livelihood would be directly affected by the impugned order. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 has been passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, acting in the capacity of a Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge has no jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, since such application can only be entertained by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as is evident from the express language of Section 14 of the Act. Thus, the impugned order is wholly without authority of law. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner has challenged the limited aspect of jurisdictional error on the part of the learned Court, and has accordingly prayed for allowing the present petition. That the act of the concerned Court in appointing a Court Commissioner is alien to criminal jurisprudence, and further, there exists a specific bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act
