Revisional challenge barred against Section 14 SARFAESI orders; aggrieved parties must invoke inherent High Court jurisdiction instead.

A revision petition under Section 397 CrPC is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act because that provision authorises the Magistrate to assist possession and expressly bars questioning acts done in pursuance of it, while the Act provides no appeal or revision against such an order. The aggrieved party's remedy lies in invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, treated as the appropriate recourse where the special statute excludes appellate or revisional challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable against an order made under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (ii) If not, what remedy is available to the aggrieved party.

Issue (i): Whether a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable against an order made under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Securitisation Act authorises the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset, and sub-section (3) expressly provides that no act done in pursuance of that section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. The Act does not provide any appeal or revision against an order under Section 14. On that basis, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code cannot be invoked to question such an order.

Conclusion: The revision petition is not maintainable.

Issue (ii): If not, what remedy is available to the aggrieved party.

Analysis: As the statute bars a challenge by appeal or revision, the appropriate recourse lies in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The order recognises Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the available remedy, treating it as akin to the High Court's supervisory constitutional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The aggrieved party may approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The revision challenge to the Section 14 order was held to be barred, and the petitioner was left to pursue the appropriate inherent jurisdiction remedy in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides no appeal or revision and expressly bars questioning of acts done under Section 14, a revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not maintainable and the proper recourse is to invoke the High Court's inherent powers.

---