Chief Judicial Magistrate jurisdiction under SARFAESI includes district-level authority for possession proceedings, making the return order unsustainable.

Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 permits a secured creditor to seek magistrate assistance for taking possession of secured assets, and the reference to the magistrate must be read with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On that construction, the Chief Judicial Magistrate functions as the district-level equivalent, while the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is the corresponding authority in metropolitan areas. A return of the application on the premise that only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate could entertain it was therefore based on a misconception, and the return order was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate was correct in returning the application filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the ground that only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate could entertain it, and whether the return order required interference.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 enables the secured creditor to seek assistance from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate for taking possession of secured assets. The reference to the magistrate under the criminal procedure law has to be understood in the light of the scheme of Sections 17(1), 12(1) and 3(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under that scheme, the Chief Judicial Magistrate functions as the district-level equivalent, and in metropolitan areas the corresponding authority is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The return of the application on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no power was therefore based on a misconception.

Conclusion: The return order was erroneous and was liable to be set aside. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to take the application on file and proceed in accordance with law.

---