Bombay High Court
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD. THR. THERE AUTH. OFFICERversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as it does not disclose any failure by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to act under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Summary
Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ratnagiri to expeditiously decide a securitisation application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petition also impleaded the Registrar of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and the High Court Administrative Committee as parties. The Court held that the petition was misconceived because the pleadings did not allege any failure by the magistrate to act within the parameters of Section 14. An adjournment of the application, by itself, does not justify a writ petition before the High Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition without imposing costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear a Section 14 SARFAESI application within a stipulated time is a ground for a writ petition in the High Court
- Whether the mere adjournment of the application justifies intervention by the High Court
Legislation cited
Subjects
- SARFAESI Act
- Section 14
- securitisation
- writ petition
- High Court jurisdiction
- procedural law
Judgment
503-WP-3984-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3984 OF 2026
Cholamandalam Investment &
Finance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane with Mr. Himanshu Pujari, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondents-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 18, 2026.
P. C. :
1. In the present Petition, the Registrar of Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court at Ratnagiri and Registrar (Judicial-II), High Court Administrative
Committee have been arraigned as party to the petition and the
direction has been sought against the Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Ratnagiri to expeditiously decide the securitisation application iled
under Section 14 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial
Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’)
2. We are of the opinion that the petition is clearly misconceived.
The pleadings do not make out any case for alleging that there is failure
on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to act within the parameters
of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Only because the application has
Gaikwad RD 1 of 2
503-WP-3984-2026.doc
been adjourned before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, is not a ground to
ile a petition before this Court impleading the High Court
Administration Committee as well as the Registrar of Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court as party to the proceedings. We are not inclined to
entertain such kind of petition. Though we were inclined to impose
costs, we refrain from doing so.
3. The Petition stands dismissed.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.08.19
14:08:20
+0530
Gaikwad RD 2 of 2
Checking your session…