TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the secured creditor could invoke section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 without first complying with section 13(4) and rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. (ii) Whether the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate authorising taking of possession was sustainable in the absence of material showing compliance with the statutory procedure.
Issue (i): Whether the secured creditor could invoke section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 without first complying with section 13(4) and rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Analysis: The statutory scheme requires default, issuance of demand notice, consideration of objections under section 13(3A), and thereafter resort to measures under section 13(4). For immovable property, rule 8 prescribes mandatory steps, including a possession notice and publication. Section 14 is intended to assist in taking possession where obstruction is faced, and it does not permit bypassing the safeguards attached to section 13(4) and rule 8. The Magistrate's role is ministerial, but the creditor must still show strict compliance with the Act and Rules.
Conclusion: Section 14 cannot be used as a routine shortcut to avoid compliance with section 13(4) and rule 8; strict compliance is required before possession is taken.
Issue (ii): Whether the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate authorising taking of possession was sustainable in the absence of material showing compliance with the statutory procedure.
Analysis: The impugned order merely appointed a commissioner to take possession and hand over the property, without indicating that compliance with sections 13(2), 13(4) and rule 8 had been established before the Magistrate. The record also did not show that the creditor had placed the necessary materials before the Magistrate. In the absence of proof of statutory compliance, the order amounted to arbitrary exercise of power under section 14 and was amenable to judicial review under articles 226 and 227.
Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The creditor's invocation of section 14 without demonstrated adherence to the mandatory statutory safeguards was impermissible, and the possession order could not be sustained in law.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is only an assisting mechanism for taking possession and cannot be invoked to circumvent the mandatory procedure under section 13(4) and rule 8; an order passed under section 14 is valid only when strict statutory compliance is shown.
TaxTMI 
