Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002? – The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi and Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an inquiry conducted by the stated authority under Section 14 of the 2002 Act, is a sui generis inquiry. In that, majorly it is an administrative or executive function regarding verification of the affidavit and the relied upon documents filed by the parties. Section 14 of the 2002 Act, stricto sensu, cannot be construed as being inconsistent with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or vice¬ versa in that regard. Having said that the provisions of the Section 14 of the 2002 Act are in no way inconsistent with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, it must then follow that the provisions of the 2002 Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of the Code. 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. The CJM is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the 2002 Act.

Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002? – The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »