Case Law Details
The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs D. Visalakshi and Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) was equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as substitution of functionaries (CMM as CJM) qua the administrative and executive or so to say non-judicial functions discharged by them in light of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, would not be inconsistent with Section 14 of the 2002 Act.
Held: The issue arose in these appeals was whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate (“CJM”) was competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“2002 Act”). There were conflicting views of different High Courts on this question. The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand had interpreted the said provision to mean that only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (“CMM”) in metropolitan areas and the District Magistrate (“DM”) in non-metropolitan areas were competent to deal with such request. On the other hand, High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh had taken a contrary view of the same provision, to mean that it did not debar or preclude the CJM in the non-metropolitan areas to exercise power under Section 14 of the 2002 Act. It was held that substitution of functionaries (CMM as CJM) qua the administrative and executive or so to say non-judicial functions discharged by them in light of the provisions of Cr.P.C., would not be inconsistent with Section 14 of the 2002 Act; it would be a permissible approach in the matter of interpretation thereof and would further the legislative intent having regard to the subject and object of the enactment. That would be a meaningful, purposive and contextual construction of Section 14 of the 2002 Act, to include CJM as being competent to assist the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset. Thus, CJM was equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
Delay condoned. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
