Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a banking company as defined in Clause 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, filed a criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought directions to respondent no. 2 (the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) to forthwith implement an order dated 14th June 2010 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The order directed the magistrate to take physical possession of the secured assets from whosoever found in possession and, if necessary, with the assistance of the police and by breaking open the locks, and handover the same to the authorised officer of the petitioner. The court heard the parties and, by consent, finally disposed of the petition. The court held that the magistrate is bound to implement the order and cannot refuse to execute it. The court directed the magistrate to forthwith implement the order, if necessary with police assistance and by breaking open locks, and handover possession to the bank's authorised officer. The petition was allowed in those terms.
Headnote
A) Banking Law - Securitisation and Enforcement of Security Interest - Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Implementation of Magistrate's Order - The petitioner bank sought implementation of an order dated 14th June 2010 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of secured assets. The court held that the magistrate is bound to implement the order and cannot refuse to execute it. The court directed the magistrate to forthwith implement the order, if necessary with police assistance and by breaking open locks, and hand over possession to the bank's authorised officer. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is obligated to implement an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of secured assets and whether the magistrate can refuse to execute the order.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. Respondent no. 2 is directed to forthwith implement the order dated 14th June 2010 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, if necessary with police assistance and by breaking open locks, and handover possession of the secured assets to the authorised officer of the petitioner.
Law Points
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
- 2002
- Section 14
- Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
- possession of secured assets
- police assistance
- banking company
