THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK versus D. VISALAKSHI AND ANR.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 23-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 26 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK
v.
D. VISALAKSHI AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6295 of 2015)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.14 – Chief Judicial
Magistrate (CJM) u/s. 14 – Competency of – There were conflicting
views of different High Courts regarding the competency of the CJM
to process the request of the secured creditors to take possession of
the secured asset u/s. 14 of the 2002 Act – The High Courts of
Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand
interpreted the said provision to mean that only Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (CMM) in metropolitan areas and the District Magistrate
(DM) in non-metropolitan areas were competent to deal with such
request – However, the High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka,
Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh took a contrary view of the same
provision, to mean that it does not debar or preclude the CJM in the
non-metropolitan areas to exercise power u/s. 14 of the 2002 Act –
On appeal, held: The powers and functions of the CMM and the
CJM are equivalent and similar, in relation to matters specified in
the Cr.P.C – These expressions (CMM and CJM) are interchangeable
and synonymous to each other – Moreover, s.14 does not explicitly
exclude the CJM from dealing with the request of the secured creditor
made thereunder – The power to be exercised u/s.14 of the 2002
Act by the concerned Authority is, by its very nature, non-judicial
or State’s coercive power – Taking totality of all the aspects, there
is nothing wrong in giving expansive meaning to the expression
‘CMM’, as inclusive of CJM concerning non-metropolitan area,
who is otherwise competent to discharge administrative as well as
the Judicial functions as delineated in the Cr.P.C. on same terms as
CMM – Therefore, the CJM is equally competent to deal with the
application moved by the secured Creditor u/s. 14 of the Act –
Accordingly, the view taken by the High Courts of Kerala,
Karnataka, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh were upheld and
approved.
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 177
177
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – ss. 14, 35 and 37 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Does Provisions of the 2002
Act override the provisions of the Cr.P.C, whereunder the functions
to be discharged by the CMM are similar to that of the CJM – Held:
The expressions ‘CMM’ and ‘CJM’ are used interchangeably in Cr.
P.C. and are considered as synonymous to each other – s.14, even
if read literally, in no manner denotes that allocation of jurisdictions
and powers to CMM and CJM under the Code of Criminal Procedure
are modified by the 2002 Act – Thus understood, s.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 – Further, s.37 of the 2002 Act predicates that the
provisions of the 2002 Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be in
addition to the stated enactments or “any other law for the time
being in force” – Having said that the Provisions of the s.14 of the
2002 Act are in no way inconsistent with the provisions of the 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.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Be it noted that Section 14 of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 is not a provision dealing with the
jurisdiction of the Court as such. It is a remedial measure available
to the secured creditor, who intends to take assistance of the
authorised officer for taking possession of the secured asset in
furtherance of enforcement of security furnished by the borrower.
The authorised officer essentially exercises administrative or
executive functions, to provide assistance to the secured creditor
in terms of State’s coercive power to effectuate the underlying
legislative intent of speeding the recovery of the outstanding dues
receivable by the secured creditor. At best, the exercise of power
by the authorised officer may partake the colour of quasi-judicial
function, which can be discharged even by the Executive
Magistrate. The authorised officer is not expected to adjudicate
the contentious issues raised by the concern

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.