IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
M/S Axis Bank Limited, Represented By Its Authorized Representative Mr. Vijay Hottin, S/o. Lingappa – Petitioner
Versus
Anand, S/o. Basavaraj – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 108728 of 2025 (GM-DRT)
Decided On : 24-11-2025
ORDER :
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the observation that “This possession delivery warrant is not binding on the 3rd parties, if they are in possession of the property in any of the capacity, passed in the order dated 04.01.2025 in Crl.Mis.No.92/2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal vide Annexure-A
b. Pass such other order as deems fit to the Hon’ble Court including cost.
2. The issue that brings the petitioner bank to this Court is an outlandish order passed by the concerned Court. The order passed by the concerned Court reads as follows:
“This petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is entitled to take physical possession of the secured asset which is described as PETITION Schedule property.
The Advocate Commissioner to be appointed as court commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset and to deliver the same to the petitioner.
It is also ordered that the court commissioner Sri. Tajuddin, Advocate is appointed and the petitioner to take physical possession of the secured asset by drawing mahazar and also by taking photographs or by making videography at the cost of petitioner.
The office is directed to issue commissioner warrant in the name of court commissioner, who is hereby directed to submit the compliance report in the court office without undue delay.
This possession delivery warrant is not binding on the 3rd parties, if they are in possession of the property in any of the capacity.
3. In a proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it is trite that the concerned Court cannot go beyond what is sought. In the case at hand, it is apparent that the concerned Court has overstepped its jurisdiction. The issue in the lis stands answered by what is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.105775/2025 disposed on 08.09.2025 which reads as follows:
11. Answer to point No.3: Whether a magistrate is required to issue any notice to the debtor while exercising power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act?
11.1 Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“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 properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period;
(iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub-clause (ii)above;
(iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified a
The court affirmed that no notice is required to be issued to a debtor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act when taking possession of secured assets.
Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, a court is not required to provide notice to a debtor or consider claims from third parties regarding secured assets during the possession proceedings.
The powers of a Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are strictly ministerial and do not permit adjudication of third-party claims on secured assets.
(1) Possession of secured asset – Powers exercisable by CMM/DM under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act are ministerial step – Section 14 of SARFAESI Act does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points ....
The SARFAESI Act, 2002 mandates that applications under Section 14 must be disposed of expeditiously without requiring notice to borrowers, as the process is ministerial and non-adjudicatory.
The powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial; prior notice to the borrower is not required. Remedies are limited to the Debt Recovery Tribunal following action under the Act.
The District Magistrate's role under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is ministerial, requiring prompt action without adjudicating disputes between parties.
In SARFAESI Act proceedings, a magistrate is not required to notify borrowers prior to granting possession, emphasizing procedural compliance over notice requirements.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.