M/S R. D. JAIN AND CO.versusCAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.

                        [2022] 13 S.C.R. 57                             57


                    M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO.                              A
                                 v.
                  CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2022)
                           JULY 27, 2022                                B
        [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 – ss. 13(4), 14 – Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) shall deem to mean and include
                                                                        C
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) – The respondent
(secured creditor) instituted proceedings under the SARFAESI Act
for recovery of the amount due and payable by the appellant
(borrower) – The borrowers refused to handover the physical
possession of security asset – Secured creditor filed an application
u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act praying for assistance from the CMM in       D
taking physical possession of the secured asset – The matter was
adjourned from time to time – Secured Creditor approached the
High Court for an order directing the CMM to dispose of application
u/s 14 in a time bound manner as mandated by second proviso to
s.14(1) of Act – The Division Bench considering the large volume
                                                                        E
of pendency and workload of the CMM, has observed that the
ACMM, being invested with all the judicial powers of the CMM,
can be considered at par with the CMM – The High Court further
observed that the CMM and ACMM stand on the same footing and
one cannot be said to be either inferior or subordinate to the other
– On appeal, held: As mandated by s.14 of the SARFAESI Act, the         F
CMM/DM has to act within the stipulated time limit and pass a
suitable order – Thus, the powers exercised by the CMM/DM is a
ministerial act – While disposing of the application u/s. 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, no element of quasi-judicial function or application
of mind would require – S.14 does not oblige the CMM/DM to go
                                                                        G
personally and take possession of the secured assets and documents
relating thereto – The High Court has rightly observed that the power
vested in the CMM/District Magistrate is not by way of persona
designata – The judicial powers and the powers, under the Cr.PC
which may be exercised by the CMM, can be exercised by the ACMM
also – Thus, the ACMM can be said to be at par with the CMM in          H
                                 57
58            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    so far as the powers to be exercised under the Cr.PC are concerned
     – The expression “CMM” as appearing in s.14 of the SARFAESI
     Act shall deem to mean and include ACMM for the purposes of s.14
     of the SARFAESI Act.
           Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B            HELD: 1.1 Considering the scheme of the SARFAESI Act,
     it is explicit and crystal clear that possession of the secured assets
     can be taken by the secured creditor before confirmation of sale
     of the secured assets as well as post- confirmation of sale. For
     taking possession of the secured assets, it could be done by the
C    “authorised officer” of the Bank as noted in Rule 8 of the Security
     Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. [Para 8][73-C-D]
            1.2 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
D    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
E    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
F    documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured
     creditor at the earliest opportunity. 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
G    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. As observed and held by this Court
     in the case of NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd., the step taken by
H
   M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                59


the CMM/DM while taking possession of the secured assets and          A
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 take possession of
                                                                      B
the secured assets and documents relating thereto. Thus, this
Court reiterates that the step to be taken by the CMM/DM under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is a ministerial step. While
disposing of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act, no element of quasi-judicial function or application of mind
would require. The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide the        C
correctness of the information given in the application and nothing
more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory
process qua points raised by the borrower against the secured
creditor taking possession of secured assets. [Para 8.1][73-D-
H; 74-A-D]
                                                                      D
      1.3 From the relevant provisions of Cr.PC, namely, sections
11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 35, it can be seen that any Metropolitan
Magistrate can be appointed by the High Court to be the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court may appoint any
Metropolitan Magistrate to be an Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have all or any of the          E
powers of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Cr.PC or under
any other law for the time being in force as the High Court may
direct. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and every Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall be subordinate to the
Sessions Judge; and every other Metropolitan Magistrate shall,        F
subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be
subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Thus the
judicial powers and the powers, under the Cr.PC which may be
exercised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, can be
exercised by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate also.
Thus, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can be said        G
to be at par with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in so far as
the powers to be exercised under the Cr.PC are concerned. The
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in addition, may have
administrative powers. However, for all other purposes and more
particularly the powers to be exercised under the Cr.PC both          H
60            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    are at par. Therefore, the Additional Chief Metropolitan
     Magistrate cannot be said to be subordinate to the Chief
     Metropolitan Magistrate in so far as exercise of judicial powers
     are concerned. [Para 10.1][77-B-E]
           2. In view of the above discussion and as observed
B    hereinabove when the powers to be exercised by the Additional
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are at par with the powers to be
     exercised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate [Section 17(2)
     of Cr.PC] and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall be subordinate to the
     Sessions Judge (Section 19 of the Cr.PC) and the steps to be
C    taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of
     the SARFAESI Act as observed hereinabove are ministerial in
     nature and does not involve any adjudicatory process and there
     is no element of any quasi-judicial function, we see no reason to
     take a different view than the view taken by the Bombay High
D    Court in the impugned judgment. This Court holds that the
     expression “Chief Metropolitan Magistrate” as appearing in
     Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and include
     Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of
     Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 10.2][77-F-H; 78-A]
E          3. Similarly, when the Additional District Magistrates are
     conferred with the powers to be exercised by the District
     Magistrates either by delegation and/or by special orders and
     the Additional District Magistrates are exercising the same
     powers which are being exercised by the District Magistrates,
     the same analogy can be applied, more particularly, when the
F    powers exercisable under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, are
     ministerial steps. [Para 10.3][78-B]
           4. The issue/question may also be considered from another
     angle. It cannot be disputed and even judicial notice can be taken
     of the fact that the CMMs and/or even the DMs are required to
G    perform so many other duties under different statutes. They have
     to perform many administrative duties also. District Magistrates
     are in overall administrative control of their jurisdiction/district.
     Similarly, CMMs are also required to perform administrative

H
   M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                 61


duties and they have also to deal with the other cases/criminal        A
trials and many trials under special statutes also. It cannot be
disputed that the litigations under the SARFAESI Act and
proceedings and/or applications under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act are increasing. Even as noticed by the High Court
in the impugned judgment and order, as on 09.08.2017, 926 cases
                                                                       B
were pending under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before only
one CMM. Therefore, a number of applications under Section
14 are pending. It also cannot be disputed that the SARFAESI
Act provides for expeditious disposal of the applications filed
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. As per, second proviso
to Section 14, suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession    C
of the secured assets are required to be passed within a maximum
period of sixty days from the date of the application. Therefore, if
the submission on behalf of the appellants that only the concerned
CMM/DM alone would have jurisdiction to decide the applications
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is accepted, in that case,
                                                                       D
it will be practically impossible for the concerned CMM/DM to
decide the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
expeditiously and within the time stipulated under second proviso
to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. If the interpretation which
this Court proposes that, the District Magistrate/Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act           E
includes the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, the same can be said to be a purposive
interpretation to achieve the object and purpose of proceedings
under the SARFAESI Act, more particularly when as observed
hereinabove, the orders to be passed under Section 14 of the
                                                                       F
SARFAESI Act are ministerial steps and to assist the secured
creditor in getting/obtaining the possession of the secured
property. Thus, there is no element of exercise of adjudicatory
powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. All these aspects
have been considered in detail by the High Court in the impugned
judgment and order. [Para 11][78-C-H; 79-A-B]                          G
     5. This Court is in complete agreement with the view taken
by the High Court that (i) the District Magistrate, Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate is not a persona designata for the

                                                                       H
62             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; (ii) the expression
     “District Magistrate” and the “Chief Metropolitan Magistrate”
     as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to
     mean and include Additional District Magistrate and Additional
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14 of
     the SARFAESI Act. [Para 12][79-C]
B
             NKGSB Cooperative Bank Limited v. Subir Chakravarty
             & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1637/2022 decided by the
             Supreme Court; Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala
             Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors. [1969] 2 SCR 201–
C            referred to.

             State of Maharashtra v. Shanti Prasad Jain in Criminal
             Reference No. 9 of 1977 decided by the Division
             Bench of the High Court; Shivam Water Treaters P.
             Ltd. v. Authorised Officer, State Bank of India in Special
D            Civil Application No. 12632 of 2013 decided by the
             Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court – referred
             to.

                              Case Law Reference
E    [1969] 2 SCR 201                  referred to             Para 4.2

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 175 of
     2022.

F          From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2017 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1961 of 2017.

           Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Ms. Dharita P. Malkan, Ms. Deepa
     Gorasia, Alok Kumar, Ms. Nandini Chhabra, Ms. Khushboo Vinodrai
     Malkan, Ms. Bhavna Sarkar, Advs. for the Appellant.
G
          Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph,
     Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advs. for the Respondents.



H
   M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                       63


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                             A
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1961/2017, by which, the Division Bench
of the High Court while interpreting Section 14 of the Securitisation and    B
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest
Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act”) has held
that (i) the District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not a
persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act; (ii) the expression “District Magistrate” and the “Chief Metropolitan   C
Magistrate” as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall
deem to mean and include Additional District Magistrate and Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act, the borrower has preferred the present appeal.
      2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as        D
under: -
       2.1 That respondent No. 1 herein – Financial Institution – Capital
First Limited is the secured creditor (hereinafter referred to as the
“secured creditor”) within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zd) of the
SARFAESI Act. That the secured creditor instituted proceedings under         E
the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the amount due and payable by the
appellant herein – borrower. The said proceedings initiated under Section
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor proceeded to take
possession of the secured asset. However, the borrowers refused to
handover the physical possession of the secured asset. The secured
creditor took symbolic possession of the secured asset on 21.01.2017         F
and affixed the possession notice at the said secured asset. That on
17.03.2017, the secured creditor filed an application under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act with the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Esplanade, Mumbai, inter-alia, praying for assistance from the learned
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in taking physical possession of the secured   G
asset. The matter was adjourned from time to time and lastly, it was
adjourned to 29.07.2017. As mandated by second proviso to sub-section
(1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the application was required to
be disposed of within a period of 30 days and as the application was not
decided within the period mandated by the statute, the secured creditor
                                                                             H
64            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    moved an application for advancement. The said application came to be
     dismissed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, inter-alia, on
     the ground that the said application is a fresh application and many old
     applications are pending. Therefore, the secured creditor approached
     the High Court by way of the present writ petition for an appropriate
     direction and order directing the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
B
     to dispose of their cases/applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
     Act in a time bound manner.
            2.2 That the Division Bench of the High Court issued directions
     to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to make an endeavour to
     dispose of the pending applications as expeditiously as possible and
C    preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of writ
     along with the order. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide
     communication dated 14.08.2017 brought to the notice of the High Court
     that, “Even though, the SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides for expeditious
     disposal of the applications filed under Section 14 of the said Act, there
D    are as many as 924 cases pending under the said Act as on 09.08.2017
     on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade,
     Mumbai. Out of 924 cases, 509 cases are filed in the year 2017. However,
     there are 27 cases of the year 2014, 96 cases of the year 2015 and 291
     cases of the year 2016, still pending for disposal. As per the direction of
     the Hon’ble High Court, preference should be given to the old pending
E    cases for disposing of the same. Therefore, the preference is being given
     to the pending old cases rather than fresh new cases.”
            2.3 On receiving the aforesaid report, the High Court was of the
     opinion that considering the volume of applications filed under Section
     14 of the SARFAESI Act and pendency of such applications, the learned
F    Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who is an authority under Section 14 of
     the SARFAESI Act cannot decide such applications within a time bound
     period in terms of the first and second proviso to Section 14(1) of the
     SARFAESI Act. After opining so, the High Court proceeded to consider
     the issue as to how to minimize the pendency. In this context, after
G    considering the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act as well as
     Section 17(2) and Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
     High Court has observed that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
     (for short “ACMM”), being invested with all the judicial powers of the
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, can be considered at par with the Chief
     Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court has also observed that so far
H
   M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                         65
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

as the exercise of judicial powers are concerned, the Chief Metropolitan       A
Magistrate and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate stand on
the same footing and one cannot be said to be either inferior or subordinate
to the other. It is further observed and held that as the status of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
is same and identical, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can
                                                                               B
exercise the powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. While
holding so, the Division Bench of the High Court has heavily relied upon
the decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shanti Prasad Jain in Criminal Reference
No. 9 of 1977 decided on 29.09.1977 by which, on a reference the Division
Bench of the High Court held and concluded that the Chief Metropolitan         C
Magistrate and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are courts
of the same status having the same or identical jurisdiction so far as the
trial of criminal cases is concerned. Further, by taking into consideration
the fact that the powers of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act being purely executionary in nature
                                                                               D
and having no element of quasi-judicial functions ultimately it is observed
and held by the High Court as under: -
      “(I) The District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
      is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of
      the SARFAESI Act.
      (II) The expression “District Magistrate” and the “Chief                 E
      Metropolitan Magistrate” as appearing in Section 14 of the
      SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and include Additional
      District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan
      Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI
      Act.”                                                                    F
      2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court holding that the District Magistrate,
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not by persona designata for the
purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and that the expression
“District Magistrate” and the “Chief Metropolitan Magistrate” as               G
appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and
include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the
borrower has preferred the present appeal.

                                                                               H
66            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A          3. Shri Purvish Jitendra Malkan, learned Advocate has appeared
     on behalf of the appellant – borrower and Shri Sachin Patil, learned
     Advocate has appeared on behalf of the State. None has appeared on
     behalf of the respondent No. 1 – secured creditor.
            4. Shri Malkan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
B    borrower has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed
     a grave error in holding that powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
     Act can be exercised by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
     and Additional District Magistrate also. It is vehemently submitted that
     the High Court has also committed a very serious/grave error in holding
     that the District Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not
C    a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI
     Act.
            4.1 Shri Malkan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
     borrower has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed
     by the High Court is just contrary to the decisions of the Gujarat High
D    Court, Kerala High Court and the Calcutta High Court. It is submitted
     that the High Court of Gujarat, has been pleased to hold that: -
           “1) District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate are two
           different and distinct authorities;

E          2) The powers conferred on the District Magistrate or the Chief
           Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, under Section 14
           are inter-alia that the powers are conferred specifically on these
           authorities. One of the aspects of the power to be exercised is
           that the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
           has to satisfy himself about compliance of the requirement of the
F          Section. The satisfaction is personal satisfaction. The District
           Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are conferred
           with the powers in their specific capacity as Chief Metropolitan
           Magistrate of the District Magistrate. They themselves only are
           the competent authorities to exercise the powers. The nature of
G          powers under Section 14 would not permit transfer/delegate of
           exercise of powers under the said provision to different person or
           authorities.”
           4.2 It is submitted that while holding as above the Gujarat High
     Court heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hari
     Chand Aggarwal Vs. Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors.; (1969)
H
   M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                         67
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

2 SCR 201. It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of Hari      A
Chand Aggarwal (supra) the District Magistrate and Additional District
Magistrate are the distinct authorities and the Additional District
Magistrate is subordinate to the District Magistrate and therefore, the
Additional District Magistrate being subordinate cannot exercise the
powers of the District Magistrate.
                                                                               B
       4.3 It is submitted that the Gujarat High Court has also considered
and relied upon its earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Shivam
Water Treaters P. Ltd. Vs. Authorised Officer, State Bank of India
in Special Civil Application No. 12632 of 2013 decided on 17.09.2013 by
which the Division Bench of the High Court observed and held as under:-
                                                                               C
      “7. In the past, this very Bench had an occasion to consider the
      question as to whether the power conferred under Section 14 of
      the Securitisation Act can be delegated by a Chief Metropolitan
      Magistrate in favour of the Additional Chief Metropolitan
      Magistrate. In that context, this bench held that the action of the
      Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in exercise of his              D
      powers under Section 19 Clause (3) of the Code of Criminal
      Procedure, 1973 read with Rule 10 Clause (1) of Chapter XXXII
      of the Criminal Manual, 1977 regarding the distribution of business
      amongst the Metropolitan Magistrates, Ahmedabad, thereby
      empowering the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,                 E
      Ahmedabad to accept and decide the cases under the provisions
      of the Securitisation Act, arising within the limits of Ahmedabad
      Municipal Corporation, was without jurisdiction.
      8. In the case before us, the question is a bit different one as to
      whether a District Magistrate can delegate such power to the             F
      Sub Divisional Magistrate.”
        It is submitted that thereafter it is specifically observed and held
that it is only the District Magistrate who can exercise the powers under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
       4.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions         G
of this Court in the case of Hari Chand Aggarwal (supra) and the
decisions of High Court of Gujarat, Kerala and Calcutta, it is prayed to
allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court and to hold that it is only the District
Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who are conferred with
                                                                               H
68            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    the powers in their specific capacity as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
     or District Magistrate to exercise the powers under Section 14 of the
     SARFAESI Act.
            5. Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
     State has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the
B    High Court. It is submitted that looking to the mandate under Section 14
     of the SARFAESI Act to decide and dispose of the applications under
     Section 14 within a maximum period of 60 days and looking to the volume
     of the work and applications pending with the District Magistrates or the
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and that they have also to look after and
     consider other duties including the administrative work and with a view
C    to see that the ultimate object and purpose of providing the time lines in
     deciding the applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it is
     prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
            6. Heard. While considering the issue whether the Additional
     District Magistrate or Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may
D    exercise the powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and/or the
     issue whether the expression “District Magistrate” and the “Chief
     Metropolitan Magistrate” as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI
     Act shall deem to mean and include Additional District Magistrate and
     Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14
E    of the SARFAESI Act, the powers exercisable by the District Magistrate
     (for short “DM”) and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short
     “CMM”) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are first required to
     be considered. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under:-
           “14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist
F          secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.—(1) Where
           the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by
           the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to
           be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions
           of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking
           possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing,
G          the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within
           whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents
           relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession
           thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or as the case
           may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made
H          to him—
M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                       69
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

  (a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto;       A
  and
  (b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor:
  [Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be
  accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer
  of the secured creditor, declaring that—                                B

  (i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the
  total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application;
  (ii) the borrower has created security interest over various
  properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a      C
  valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the
  claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation
  period;
  (iii) the borrower has created security interest over various
  properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub-clause   D
  (ii)above;
  (iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the
  financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount;
  (v) consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial
  assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a         E
  non-performing asset;
  (vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by
  the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment
  of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the
  borrower;                                                               F
  (vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice received
  from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor
  and reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation
  had been communicated to the borrower;
  (viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial         G
  assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer
  is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets
  under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with
  section 14 of the principal Act;
                                                                          H
70            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A          (ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder
           had been complied with:
                  Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from the
           Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief
           Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying
B          the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for the purpose
           of taking possession of the secured assets [within a period of
           thirty days from the date of application]
                 [Provided also that if no order is passed by the Chief
           Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said
C          period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after
           recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within
           such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days.]
                  Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated
           in the first proviso shall not apply to proceeding pending before
D          any District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as
           the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act.]
                 (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the
           provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
           or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such
E          steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his
           opinion, be necessary.
                  (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the
           District Magistrate [any officer authorised by the Chief
           Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate] done in pursuance
F          of this section shall be called in question in any court or before
           any authority.”
           6.1 That in the year 2013 by Act 1 of 2013, Section 14 (1A) has
     been inserted by which now, while exercising the powers under Section
     14 of the SARFAESI Act, the District Magistrate or the Chief
     Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him to
G
     take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto; and to
     forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor. Section 14
     (1A) as inserted in the year 2013 reads as under:-
                “[(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan
           Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,—
H
   M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                         71
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

             (i) to take possession of such assets and documents relating      A
      thereto; and
             (ii) to forward such assets and documents to the secured
      creditor.]”
      6.2 Even as observed and held by this Court in the recent decision
of NKGSB Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Subir Chakravarty &                      B
Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1637/2022) decided on 25.02.2022, it is open to
the CMM/DM to appoint an advocate and authorise him/her to take
possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to
forward the same to the secured creditor under Section 14(1A) of the
SARFAESI Act.                                                                  C
      7. Now so far as the powers exercisable by DM and CMM under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are concerned, statement of objects
and reasons for which SARFAESI Act has been enacted reads as under:-
      “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
                                                                               D
      The financial sector has been one of the key drivers in India’s
      efforts to achieve success in rapidly developing its economy. While
      the banking industry in India is progressively complying with the
      international prudential norms and accounting practices there are
      certain areas in which the banking and financial sector do not
      have a level playing field as compared to other participants in the      E
      financial markets in the world. There is no legal provision for
      facilitating securitisation of financial assets of banks and financial
      institutions. Further, unlike international banks, the banks and
      financial institutions in India do not have power to take possession
      of securities and sell them. Our existing legal framework relating       F
      to commercial transactions has not kept pace with the changing
      commercial practices and financial sector reforms. This has
      resulted in slow pace of recovery of defaulting loans and mounting
      levels of non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions.
      Narasimham Committee I and II and Andhyarujina Committee
      constituted by the Central Government for the purpose of                 G
      examining banking sector reforms have considered the need for
      changes in the legal system in respect of these areas. These
      Committees, inter alia, have suggested enactment of a new
      legislation for securitisation and empowering banks and financial
      institutions to take possession of the securities and to sell them
                                                                               H
72             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A          without the intervention of the court. Acting on these suggestions,
           the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
           Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002 was
           promulgated on the 21st June, 2002 to regulate securitisation and
           reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security
           interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
B
           The provisions of the Ordinance would enable banks and financial
           institutions to realise long-term assets, manage problem of liquidity,
           asset liability mismatches and improve recovery by exercising
           powers to take possession of securities, sell them and reduce
           nonperforming assets by adopting measures for recovery or
C          reconstruction.”
             Thus, the underlying purpose of the SARFAESI Act is to empower
     the financial institutions in India to have similar powers as enjoyed by
     their counterparts, namely, international banks in other countries. One
     such feature is to empower the financial institutions to take possession
D    of securities and sell them. The same has been translated into provisions
     falling under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act. Section 13 deals with
     enforcement of security interest. Sub-Section (4) thereof envisages that
     in the event a default is committed by the borrower in discharging his
     liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured
     creditor may take recourse to one or more of the measures provided in
E    sub-section (4). One of the measures is to take possession of the secured
     assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease,
     assignment or sale for realising the secured asset. That, they could do
     through their “authorised officer” as defined in Rule 2(a) of the Security
     Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
F           7.1 After taking over possession of the secured assets, further
     steps to lease, assign or sale the same could also be taken by the secured
     creditor. However, Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act predicates that if
     the secured creditor intends to take possession of the secured assets,
     must approach the CMM/DM by way of an application in writing, and
G    on receipt of such request, the CMM/DM must move into action in right
     earnest. After passing an order thereon, he/she (CMM/DM) must
     proceed to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating
     thereto for being forwarded to the secured creditor in terms of Section
     14(1) read with Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act. As noted earlier,
     Section 14(2) is an enabling provision and permits the CMM/DM to take
H    such steps and use force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary.
   M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                            73
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

        7.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that along with insertion   A
of sub-section (1A), a proviso has also been inserted in sub-section (1)
of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act whereby the secured creditor is
now required to comply certain conditions and to disclose that by way of
an application accompanied by affidavit duly affirmed by its authorised
officer in that regard. Sub-Section (1A) is in the nature of an explanatory
                                                                                  B
provision and it merely restates the implicit power of the CMM/DM in
taking services of any officer subordinate to him. As observed and held
by this Court in the case of NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra),
the insertion of sub-section (1A) is not to invest a new power for the
first time in the CMM/DM as such.
       8. Thus, considering the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, it is explicit        C
and crystal clear that possession of the secured assets can be taken by
the secured creditor before confirmation of sale of the secured assets
as well as post-confirmation of sale. For taking possession of the secured
assets, it could be done by the “authorised officer” of the Bank as noted
in Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.                     D
       8.1 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     E
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        F
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. 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         G
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. As observed and
                                                                                  H
74            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    held by this Court in the case of NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd.
     (supra), 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
B
     CMM/DM to go personally and take possession of the secured assets
     and documents relating thereto. Thus, we reiterate that the step to be
     taken by the CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is a
     ministerial step. While disposing of the application under Section 14 of
     the SARFAESI Act, no element of quasi-judicial function or application
C    of mind would require. The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide the
     correctness of the information given in the application and nothing more.
     Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory process qua points
     raised by the borrower against the secured creditor taking possession of
     secured assets.
D           9. Thus, in view of the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, more
     particularly, Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the nature of the
     powers to be exercised by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/learned
     District Magistrate, the High Court in the impugned judgment and order
     has rightly observed and held that the power vested in the learned Chief
     Metropolitan Magistrate/learned District Magistrate is not by way of
E    persona designata.
            10. Now the next question which is posed for consideration of
     this Court is, whether, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can
     be said to be subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. For that
     purpose the relevant provisions of the Cr.PC, namely, Sections 11, 12,
F    15, 16, 17, 19 and 35, are required to be referred to which are extracted
     as under:-
           “11. Courts of Judicial Magistrates.—(1) In every district (not
           being a metropolitan area) there shall be established as many
           Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class and of the second
G          class, and at such places, as the State Government may, after
           consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify: 1
           [Provided that the State Government may, after consultation with
           the High Court, establish, for any local area, one or more Special
           Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class or of the second
H          class to try any particular case or particular class of cases, and
M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                       75
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

  where any such Special Court is established, no other Court of          A
  Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case
  or class of cases for the trial of which such Special Court of
  Judicial Magistrate has been established.] (2) The presiding officers
  of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court. (3) The
  High Court may, whenever it appears to it to be expedient or
                                                                          B
  necessary, confer the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first
  class or of the second class on any member of the Judicial Service
  of the State, functioning as a Judge in a Civil Court.
  12. Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial
  Magistrate, etc.—(1) In every district (not being a metropolitan
  area), the High Court shall appoint a Judicial Magistrate of the        C
  first class to be the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (2) The High Court
  may appoint any Judicial Magistrate of the first class to be an
  Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall
  have all or any of the powers of a Chief Judicial Magistrate under
  this Code or under any other law for the time being in force as the     D
  High Court may direct. (3) (a) The High Court may designate
  any Judicial Magistrate of the first class in any sub-division as the
  Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate and relieve him of the
  responsibilities specified in this section as occasion requires. (b)
  Subject to the general control of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
  every Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate shall also have and            E
  exercise, such powers of supervision and control over the work
  of the Judicial Magistrates (other than Additional Chief Judicial
  Magistrates) in the sub-division as the High Court may, by general
  or special order, specify in this behalf.
  15. Subordination of Judicial Magistrates.—(1) Every Chief              F
  Judicial Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge;
  and every other Judicial Magistrate shall, subject to the general
  control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Judicial
  Magistrate. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to
  time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Code,     G
  as to the distribution of business among the Judicial Magistrates
  subordinate to him.
  16. Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates.—(1) In every metropolitan
  area, there shall be established as many Courts of Metropolitan
  Magistrates, and at such places, as the State Government may,           H
76      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify. (2)
     The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the
     High Court. (3) The jurisdiction and powers of every Metropolitan
     Magistrate shall extend throughout the metropolitan area.
     17. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief
B    Metropolitan Magistrate.—(1) The High Court shall, in relation to
     every metropolitan area within its local jurisdiction, appoint a
     Metropolitan Magistrate to be the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
     for such metropolitan area. (2) The High Court may appoint any
     Metropolitan Magistrate to be an Additional Chief Metropolitan
     Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers
C    of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under this Code or under any
     other law for the time being in force as the High Court may direct.
     19. Subordination of Metropolitan Magistrates.—(1) The Chief
     Metropolitan Magistrate and every Additional Chief Metropolitan
     Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge; and every
D    other Metropolitan Magistrate shall, subject to the general control
     of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan
     Magistrate. (2) The High Court may, for the purposes of this Code,
     define the extent of the subordination, if any, of the Additional
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to the Chief Metropolitan
E    Magistrate. (3) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may, from time
     to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this
     Code, as to the distribution of business among the Metropolitan
     Magistrates and as to the allocation of business to an Additional
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

F    35. Powers of Judges and Magistrates exercisable by their
     successors-in-office.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this
     Code, the powers and duties of a Judge or Magistrate may be
     exercised or performed by his successor-in-office. (2) When there
     is any doubt as to who is the successor-in-office of any Additional
     or Assistant Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge shall determine
G    by order in writing the Judge who shall, for the purposes of this
     Code or of any proceedings or order thereunder, be deemed to be
     the successor-in-office of such Additional or Assistant Sessions
     Judge. (3) When there is any doubt as to who is the successor-in-
     office of any Magistrate, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or the
H    District Magistrate, as the case may be, shall determine by order
   M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                          77
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      in writing the Magistrate who shall, for the purpose of this Code         A
      or of any proceedings or order thereunder, be deemed to be the
      successor-in-office of such Magistrate.”
        10.1 From the aforesaid provisions, it can be seen that any
Metropolitan Magistrate can be appointed by the High Court to be the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court may appoint any                   B
Metropolitan Magistrate to be an Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Cr.PC or under any other law for
the time being in force as the High Court may direct. The Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and every Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge; and every other          C
Metropolitan Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions
Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Thus the
judicial powers and the powers, under the Cr.PC which may be exercised
by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, can be exercised by the Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate also. Thus, the Additional Chief                  D
Metropolitan Magistrate can be said to be at par with the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate in so far as the powers to be exercised under
the Cr.PC are concerned. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in addition,
may have administrative powers. However, for all other purposes and
more particularly the powers to be exercised under the Cr.PC both are
at par. Therefore, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot          E
be said to be subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in so far
as exercise of judicial powers are concerned.
       10.2 In view of the above discussion and as observed hereinabove
when the powers to be exercised by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate are at par with the powers to be exercised by the Chief              F
Metropolitan Magistrate [Section 17(2) of Cr.PC] and the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge (Section 19 of the Cr.PC) and
the steps to be taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act as observed hereinabove are ministerial in               G
nature and does not involve any adjudicatory process and there is no
element of any quasi-judicial function, we see no reason to take a different
view than the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the impugned
judgment. We hold that the expression “Chief Metropolitan Magistrate”
as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean
                                                                                H
78             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    and include Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes
     of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
            10.3 Similarly, when the Additional District Magistrates are
     conferred with the powers to be exercised by the District Magistrates
     either by delegation and/or by special orders and the Additional District
B    Magistrates are exercising the same powers which are being exercised
     by the District Magistrates, the same analogy can be applied, more
     particularly, when the powers exercisable under Section 14 of the
     SARFAESI Act, are ministerial steps.
            11. The issue/question may also be considered from another angle.
C    It cannot be disputed and even judicial notice can be taken of the fact
     that the CMMs and/or even the DMs are required to perform so many
     other duties under different statutes. They have to perform many
     administrative duties also. District Magisters are in overall administrative
     control of their jurisdiction/district. Similarly, CMMs are also required to
     perform administrative duties and they have also to deal with the other
D    cases/criminal trials and many trials under special statutes also. It cannot
     be disputed that the litigations under the SARFAESI Act and proceedings
     and/or applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are increasing.
     Even as noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order,
     as on 09.08.2017, 926 cases were pending under Section 14 of the
E    SARFAESI Act before only one CMM. Therefore, a number of
     applications under Section 14 are pending. It also cannot be disputed
     that the SARFAESI Act provides for expeditious disposal of the
     applications filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. As per, second
     proviso to Section 14, suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession
     of the secured assets are required to be passed within a maximum period
F    of sixty days from the date of the application. Therefore, if the submission
     on behalf of the appellants that only the concerned CMM/DM alone
     would have jurisdiction to decide the applications under Section 14 of
     the SARFAESI Act is accepted, in that case, it will be practically
     impossible for the concerned CMM/DM to decide the application under
G    Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act expeditiously and within the time
     stipulated under second proviso to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. If
     the interpretation which we propose that, the District Magistrate/Chief
     Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act includes
     the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Chief Metropolitan
     Magistrate, the same can be said to be a purposive interpretation to
H
   M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. v. CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.                         79
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

achieve the object and purpose of proceedings under the SARFAESI               A
Act, more particularly when as observed hereinabove, the orders to be
passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial steps and
to assist the secured creditor in getting/obtaining the possession of the
secured property. Thus, there is no element of exercise of adjudicatory
powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. All these aspects have
                                                                               B
been considered in detail by the High Court in the impugned judgment
and order.
       12. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
High Court that (i) the District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act; (ii) the expression “District Magistrate” and the “Chief         C
Metropolitan Magistrate” as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act shall deem to mean and include Additional District Magistrate and
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14
of the SARFAESI Act.
      13. The contrary view taken by the other High Courts, namely,            D
Gujarat High Court in the case of Pushpa Devi B Jain W/o Bhawarlal M
Jain Vs. Indian Overseas Bank in Special Civil Application No. 19102/
2015; Calcutta High Court in the case of Shri Chellaperumal & Anr. Vs.
The Authorised Officer & Ors. in M.A. No. 26/2014 and Kerala High
Court in the case of Aseena Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Ors. in          E
W.P. (C) No. 3331/2007, is not a good law and are specifically overruled.
       14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. We hold that the powers under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act can be exercised by the concerned Additional Chief                F
Metropolitan Magistrates of the area having jurisdiction and also by the
Additional District Magistrates, who otherwise are exercising the powers
at par with the concerned District Magistrates either by delegation and/
or special order. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

                                                                               G
Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)




                                                                               H