SARFAESI Section 14 timeline is directory; magistrate's delay does not end jurisdiction or defeat secured creditor action.

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act requires the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to act within thirty days, extendable to sixty days for recorded reasons, but the timeline is directory rather than mandatory; expiry of that period does not render the authority functus officio or extinguish jurisdiction. The provision must be read in light of the Act's object of expeditious enforcement of security interests, so administrative delay cannot defeat the secured creditor's application. On the jurisdiction objection, the writ was not dismissed on a technical ground; the matter was directed to be converted to the appellate side and renumbered so it could be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time limit prescribed for action by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is mandatory and whether expiry of that period renders the authority functus officio. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be entertained and, if necessary, converted from the original side to the appellate side on the ground that the cause of action arose outside the original side jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the time limit prescribed for action by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is mandatory and whether expiry of that period renders the authority functus officio.

Analysis: Section 14 requires the Magistrate to act within thirty days and permits a further period, on recorded reasons, not exceeding sixty days in aggregate. The provision serves the object of expeditious enforcement of security interests and must be read in that context. The prescribed timeline is intended to ensure prompt action, but failure to conclude the process within that period does not destroy the authority's jurisdiction. The District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate remains empowered to proceed, and the secured creditor cannot be left remediless because of administrative delay.

Conclusion: The time limit is directory and not mandatory, and the authority does not become functus officio on expiry of the stipulated period.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be entertained and, if necessary, converted from the original side to the appellate side on the ground that the cause of action arose outside the original side jurisdiction.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection was not accepted as a ground to throw out the matter. The proceeding could be dealt with within the High Court's institutional framework, and conversion to the appropriate side was the proper course so that the dispute could be decided on merits rather than defeated on a technical objection.

Conclusion: The proceeding was directed to be converted to the appellate side and renumbered, and the original-side writ stood disposed of accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The secured creditor's application under Section 14 was held to survive despite lapse of the statutory timeline, and the matter was allowed with a direction for expeditious disposal of the bank's application after conversion of the proceeding to the appellate side.

Ratio Decidendi: The time limit under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is directory, so delay by the Magistrate does not extinguish jurisdiction or render the authority functus officio; the authority must still act to effectuate the Act's object of timely recovery.

---