Section 14 time limit under SARFAESI is directory, so delay does not invalidate possession proceedings or end jurisdiction.

The time limit in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to pass orders and deliver possession is directory, not mandatory. The provision was construed in light of the Act's object of enabling speedy recovery by secured creditors and regulating a public duty beyond the creditor's control. The use of "shall" was not treated as decisive, and expiry of the stipulated period does not divest jurisdiction, render the Section 14 remedy ineffective, or make the Magistrate functus officio.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time limit prescribed in Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to pass orders and deliver possession of the secured asset is mandatory or directory.

Analysis: The time prescription was examined in the context of the object of the Act, which is to enable secured creditors to take speedy possession and recover public dues. The provision was held to regulate the performance of a public duty by an authority over whom the secured creditor has no control. Applying settled principles on statutory interpretation, the use of the word "shall" was not treated as decisive by itself. The Court found that the absence of action within the stipulated period does not divest the Magistrate of jurisdiction or render the remedy under Section 14 ineffective. The provision was therefore construed in light of its purpose and practical consequences, rather than as an inflexible mandate.

Conclusion: The time limit in Section 14 is directory, not mandatory, and delay beyond the prescribed period does not invalidate the proceedings or make the Magistrate functus officio.

---