CJM must exercise independent judgment under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, not follow mechanical procedures.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 27^th day of January 2026)

The petitioner, a banking company, has filed this Writ Petition with the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext-P8 order and quash Ext-P8 order passed by the DRT-II, Ernakulam.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the DRT to consider the Ext-P5 interim application on merits without going into the merits of Ext-P3 order within a time limit prescribed by this Hon'ble Court;

c) If prayers (a) & (b) are not being allowed, pass an order directing the CJM, Thrissur to pass fresh orders on Ext-P2 Application filed by the Petitioner without including in same any handwritten insertions bestowing reflection of application of mind into the Ext-P2 application within a time limit prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.

d) Declare that the CJM Courts in Kerala while considering the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot resort to any printed format/templates prepared and is bound to independently consider each application and pass orders on same showing and reflecting due application of mind and issue a direction to the 5th Respondent to issue appropriate directions to the CJM within his jurisdiction to ensure compliance of the above declaration in respect of orders being passed in the Section 14 Application filed under the SARFAESI Act .”

2. The 2nd respondent, which is a partnership firm, has availed various financial facilities from the petitioner bank. Consequent to the default committed in repayment, the accounts were classified as NPA and notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 21.8.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and to co borrowers /guarantors. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed S.A. No.37 of 2025 against the measures taken by the petitioner under Section 13 (4) of the Act. The petitioner also moved the C.J.M. Court, Thrissur under Section 14 , by filing C.M.P.No.3999 of 2025 seeking assistance to take physical possession of the secured assets. The said petition was allowed as per order dated 3.5.2025 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take physical possession of the secured assets.

3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 challenged the order under Section 14 , by filing an amendment petition in the S.A. to incorporate the challenges also. A stay petition was also filed as I.A.No.3365 of 2026 seeking stay of the measures under Section 14 of the Act.

4. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner to the said I.A. before the DRT-II, Ernakulam. By Ext.P8 order dated 26.08.2025, the D.R.T. deferred the taking of physical possession on the ground that a mechanical order is passed by the CJM, Thrissur without applying mind and contrary to the judgment passed in O.P. (DRT) No.336 of 2024. The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 in this Writ Petition.

5. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, wherein it is stated that this court by judgment dated 18.3.2025 in O.P.(DRT) No.336 of 2024, (The South Indian Bank Ltd. and another v. Jaffer M.), observed that it may not be necessary to examine the correctness of the averments in the affidavit filed by the bank/financial institution in support of the application for orders under Section 14 of the SARFASESI Act, the Magistrate must clearly apply his mind to the averments in the application and determine as to whether procedure contemplated has been followed before passing an order under Section 14 . This court has strongly deprecated the practice of passing orders in printed form and directed the Registry to communicate the same to the concerned C.J.M. The D.R.T. relied on the above judgment and found that the order passed by C.J.M., Thrissur in C.M.P. No.3999 of 2025 suffered the same defect. It was also prayed that this court may issue a declaration that C.J.M. courts in Kerala,