Section 14 SARFAESI time limit is directory; affidavit defects are to be tested through the statutory Section 17 remedy.

The amended proviso to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is treated as directory rather than mandatory because it is aimed at expeditious disposal, does not prescribe a consequence for breach, and non-compliance does not affect substantive rights; expiry of 60 days therefore does not divest the District Magistrate of jurisdiction. The affidavit requirement under the proviso is a substantive safeguard, but defects or omission can be challenged after possession is taken by invoking the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. In that setting, writ intervention under Article 226 is generally not the first recourse.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the time limit introduced in the proviso to Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is mandatory or directory and whether expiry of 60 days divests the District Magistrate of jurisdiction; (ii) whether non-filing or defective filing of the affidavit required under the amended proviso to Section 14 affects the validity of the proceedings and what remedy is available.

Issue (i): whether the time limit introduced in the proviso to Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is mandatory or directory and whether expiry of 60 days divests the District Magistrate of jurisdiction

Analysis: The amended proviso uses peremptory language and negative words, but those features are not conclusive by themselves. The object of the amendment, gathered from the statutory context and Statement of Objects and Reasons, was to ensure expeditious disposal of applications so that secured creditors could obtain possession quickly. The provision does not prescribe any consequence for non-compliance. The Court held that provisions fixing a time limit for performance of statutory duties or exercise of jurisdiction are generally directory where non-compliance does not affect substantive rights and where public interest, rather than a private right, is the principal concern. Borrowers, guarantors and lessees are not prejudiced merely because the application is decided after 60 days, whereas construing the provision as mandatory would frustrate the statutory object by delaying possession and requiring a fresh application.

Conclusion: The time limit in the amended proviso to Section 14 is directory and not mandatory, and expiry of 60 days does not divest the District Magistrate of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether non-filing or defective filing of the affidavit required under the amended proviso to Section 14 affects the validity of the proceedings and what remedy is available

Analysis: The affidavit requirement was treated as a substantive safeguard. If the secured creditor does not comply with the statutory affidavit requirement, the borrower or other aggrieved person is not left without a remedy. The measure taken in possession proceedings, whether through Section 14 or otherwise, remains challengeable under Section 17 once symbolic, constructive or physical possession is taken. In that situation, the aggrieved party may approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal to challenge the measure under Section 13(4), and the availability of an effective alternative remedy also limits interference under Article 226.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with the affidavit requirement may be agitated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 after possession is taken, and the writ remedy is not the appropriate first recourse.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions by borrowers were disposed of by granting liberty to pursue the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, while the secured creditor's petition for disposal of the Section 14 application was allowed with a direction for expeditious decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A time-limit proviso governing statutory action is directory, not mandatory, where its object is expedition, no consequence is provided for breach, and non-compliance does not affect substantive rights; the statutory remedy under Section 17 remains available to challenge possession measures under Section 13(4) or Section 14.

---