IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-12-2026

Date of decision : 09.01.2026

SMFG India Credit Company Ltd.

…….Petitioner

Versus

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and others

...….Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA KULWANT KALSON

Present: Mr. Karnesh Verma, Advocate (through video conferencing),

for the petitioner.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral )

1. The petitioner – financial institution is before this Court invoking writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by in-action on the part of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana (respondent No.1) to decide the application (Annexure P-4) submitted by the petitioner u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), which is pending since July, 2025.

1.1 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no Securitization Application or appeal has been filed by borrower(s)/co- borrower(s) or any other stakeholder relating to the loan transaction involved

in the instant petition.

2. It is stated in the application (Annexure P-4) that respondents No.2 to 5 availed loan facility of Rs. 1,43,01,931/- from the petitioner, and upon default in repayment, the account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 04.03.2025, whereafter demand notice dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was duly served upon the respondents – borrowers, calling upon them to discharge their liability within a period of sixty days. The respondents – borrowers failed to comply with the said demand notice and accordingly, the petitioner – secured creditor filed application u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which is pending since July, 2025.

3. The Apex Court in R.D. Jain & Co. Vs. Capital First Limited and others, (2023) 1 SCC 675, while explaining the width and ambit of jurisdiction u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act held thus :

“23. However, for taking physical possession of the secured assets in terms of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor is obliged to approach the CMM/DM by way of a written application requesting for taking possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and for being forwarded to it (secured creditor) for further action. The statutory obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM is to immediately move into action after receipt of a written application under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act from the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such an application is received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass an order after verification of compliance of all formalities by the secured creditor referred to in the proviso in Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that regard, to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity.

24. As mandated by Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM has to act within the stipulated time-limit and pass a suitable order for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets within a period of 30 days from the date of application which can be extended for such further period but not exceeding in the aggregate, sixty days. Thus, the powers exercised by the CMM/DM is a ministerial act. He cannot brook delay. Time is of the essence. This is the spirit of the special enactment.

25. As observed and held by this Court in NKGSB Coop. Bank (NKGSB Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, (2022) 10 SCC : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 157, the step taken by the CMM/DM while taking possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto is a ministerial step. It could be taken by the CMM/DM himself/herself or through any officer subordinate to him/her, including the Advocate Commissioner who is considered as an officer of his/her court. Section 14 does not oblige the CMM/DM to go personally and