Functional subordination under SARFAESI permits appointment of an advocate commissioner to take possession of secured assets.

Section 14(1A) of the SARFAESI Act permits the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, acting on the secured creditor's written application, to appoint an advocate commissioner to take possession of secured assets and forward them to the secured creditor. The expression "any officer subordinate to him" was read functionally, not as limited to service subordination, because the possession-taking exercise is ministerial and the Act is designed for speedy enforcement. An advocate commissioner, as an officer of the court, may therefore be treated as subordinate for this purpose. The contrary view was rejected, and the interpretation adopted by the Kerala, Madras and Delhi High Courts was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can appoint an advocate commissioner to take possession of secured assets and forward them to the secured creditor under Section 14(1A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Act requires the Magistrate, on the secured creditor's written application, to take possession of the secured assets and forward them to the secured creditor. The provision introduced by sub-section (1A) is enabling in nature and must be read with the overall scheme of the Act, its object of speedy enforcement, and the ministerial character of the possession-taking exercise. The Court held that the expression "any officer subordinate to him" is not confined to service subordination and, for this purpose, an advocate appointed as commissioner can be treated as functionally subordinate to the Magistrate because an advocate is an officer of the court. The absence of any prohibitory rule under the Act or the Rules also supported this construction.

Conclusion: The District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can appoint an advocate commissioner to take possession of secured assets and forward them to the secured creditor under Section 14(1A), and the contrary view was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals by the secured creditors succeeded, the Bombay High Court view was set aside, and the interpretation adopted by the High Courts of Kerala, Madras and Delhi was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 14(1A), "any officer subordinate to him" includes an advocate commissioner acting as an officer of the court, because the possession-taking function is ministerial and may be carried out through functional subordination consistent with the object of the Act.

---