Section 14 SARFAESI orders by an in-charge magistrate were upheld under the de facto doctrine and charge-holding authority.

Orders under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act passed by an In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, when the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was absent, were not treated as void for want of jurisdiction. The provision contemplates limited, non-adjudicatory assistance for taking possession of secured assets, and the applications were moved before the competent forum. The de facto doctrine was applied to protect acts done under colour of lawful authority and to prevent collateral challenge between private parties. A later notification authorising the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to hold charge in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's absence further supported the legality of the orders, so the jurisdictional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether orders passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by an In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, while the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was absent, were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 contemplates assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate for taking possession of secured assets. The Applications were filed before the competent forum, namely the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and were heard by the In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate only because the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was absent. The jurisdiction exercised under section 14 is limited and non-adjudicatory. In any event, the de facto doctrine protects acts done by an officer functioning under colour of lawful authority, and prevents collateral attack on such acts in litigation between private parties. The subsequent notification empowering the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who holds charge of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the latter's absence further supported the legality of the impugned orders.

Conclusion: The challenge to the section 14 orders failed. The In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's orders were not treated as void or without jurisdiction.

---