Section 14 SARFAESI upheld as ministerial, non-adjudicatory remedy; absence of separate appeal was not unconstitutional.

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was treated as a procedural mechanism that assists the secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets after steps under Section 13, with the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate performing only a ministerial, non-adjudicatory function. The provision was not held arbitrary merely because it does not provide a separate appeal, since the statute already affords remedies under Section 17 against measures under Section 13(4), a further appeal under Section 18, and bars civil court jurisdiction under Section 34. Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 remains available for jurisdictional error. The challenge to Section 14 failed and the provision was upheld as constitutionally valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is unconstitutional for conferring unbridled power on the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and for not providing an appeal against orders passed under it.

Analysis: Section 14 was held to be a procedural provision meant only to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets after the statutory demand and enforcement steps under Section 13. The District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was found to have no adjudicatory power under this provision and only a ministerial duty to render assistance and, where necessary, use force to secure compliance. The statutory scheme already provides a complete remedy under Section 17 against measures taken under Section 13(4), with a further appeal under Section 18, while civil court jurisdiction is barred by Section 34. The absence of a separate appeal against an order under Section 14 was held not to render the provision arbitrary or unreasonable, since the right of appeal is a creature of statute and the availability of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 remains intact in cases of jurisdictional excess or refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Section 14 was upheld as constitutionally valid and intra vires; the challenge based on absence of appeal and alleged arbitrariness failed.

---