SARFAESI Section 14 jurisdiction remains limited, with writ review available when a secured creditor's application is rejected.

Under the SARFAESI Act, a secured creditor is not confined to Section 17 where its Section 14 application is rejected, because Section 17 remedies a person aggrieved by measures under Section 13(4) and does not provide the creditor a direct remedy against refusal under Section 14; judicial review under Article 226 therefore remains available. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to entertain a Section 14 application, as the role of Chief Judicial Magistrate and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is treated as interchangeable for this purpose in non-metropolitan areas. Section 14 requires only verification of the secured creditor's statutory affidavit and assistance in taking possession, without adjudicating inter se rights.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; (ii) whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; (iii) the scope of jurisdiction while considering an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002

Analysis: The remedy under Section 17 is available to a person aggrieved by the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4). An order passed on the secured creditor's application under Section 14 is not an action of the secured creditor itself, and the statutory scheme does not provide a remedy to the secured creditor before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against rejection of its Section 14 application. In such circumstances, the secured creditor cannot be left remediless, and judicial review under Article 226 remains available.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002

Analysis: The expressions Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Chief Judicial Magistrate are treated as interchangeable for the purpose of Section 14 in non-metropolitan areas. The provision does not exclude the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is equally competent to deal with an application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14.

Conclusion: The Chief Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 14.

Issue (iii): The scope of jurisdiction while considering an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002

Analysis: The authority under Section 14 does not undertake adjudication of inter se rights. Its role is confined to verifying the factual correctness of the 9-point affidavit filed by the secured creditor and then rendering assistance for taking possession. Any challenge to the creditor's measures lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, while the secured creditor may invoke writ jurisdiction if the order is not passed or not implemented.

Conclusion: The authority exercising power under Section 14 has a limited, non-adjudicatory role confined to verification of the statutory affidavit and assistance in execution.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of the secured creditor's Section 14 application was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to fresh consideration of its application before the competent authority under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority acting under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 performs a limited non-adjudicatory function confined to verification of the statutory affidavit, and a secured creditor aggrieved by rejection of its Section 14 application is not confined to the remedy under Section 17.

---