TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is unconstitutional on the ground that the District Magistrate may act without issuing notice to the borrower and that the provision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether grievances regarding absence of notice or non-compliance with the procedure for taking possession can be agitated under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 without invalidating section 14.
Issue (i): Whether section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is unconstitutional on the ground that the District Magistrate may act without issuing notice to the borrower and that the provision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the secured creditor to proceed first under section 13 by issuing notice, considering objections under section 13(3A), and then taking measures under section 13(4). Section 14 only provides the procedure for assistance by the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in taking possession after the statutory steps have been followed. A failure to issue notice in a particular case may invalidate that action, but it does not make section 14 itself arbitrary or illegal.
Conclusion: Section 14 is constitutionally valid and is not violative of Article 14.
Issue (ii): Whether grievances regarding absence of notice or non-compliance with the procedure for taking possession can be agitated under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 without invalidating section 14.
Analysis: If the secured creditor acts contrary to the Act or the Rules while taking possession, such action is open to challenge before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17. The availability of that statutory remedy preserves the validity of section 14, which remains only the procedural mechanism for possession.
Conclusion: Such grievances are to be pursued under section 17, and they do not render section 14 unlawful.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial grounds, and the challenge to section 14 was rejected while the statutory remedy under section 17 was left available for any illegal possession action.
Ratio Decidendi: A provision authorising assistance in taking possession is not unconstitutional merely because an individual action may suffer from want of notice or procedural defect; such defects are remediable under the statute and do not invalidate the provision itself.
TaxTMI 
