SARFAESI procedure and contempt jurisdiction determined the challenge: enforcement measures were set aside, while contempt was not entertained.

A SARFAESI challenge succeeded where the borrower questioned the demand notice, possession notice and the Section 14 order, and the Tribunal found no material showing any borrower objection under Section 13(3A) but also no rebuttal from the secured creditor on alleged defects in service, affixture and publication of the possession notice or on compliance verification before invoking Section 14. The possession notice and the magistrate's order were set aside for non-compliance with mandatory procedure. A separate contempt complaint based on breach of the stay order was not entertained because the Tribunal noted it had no contempt jurisdiction, and the complaint was closed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the secured creditor's measures under the SARFAESI Act, including the possession notice and the order under Section 14, were liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the statutory procedure. (ii) Whether the contempt petition was maintainable before the Tribunal in respect of the alleged violation of the stay order.

Issue (i): Whether the secured creditor's measures under the SARFAESI Act, including the possession notice and the order under Section 14, were liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the statutory procedure.

Analysis: The application was filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act challenging the demand notice, possession notice and the order obtained under Section 14. The Tribunal noted that the borrower had received the demand notice, but no material was produced to show any objection or representation under Section 13(3A). At the same time, the secured creditor remained absent and led no evidence to rebut the specific allegations that the possession notice was not properly served, not affixed, and not published in the prescribed manner, and that the application under Section 14 had been mechanically entertained without due verification of compliance with the Act and Rules.

Conclusion: The challenge under Section 17(1) succeeded. The possession notice and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate were set aside, and the borrower obtained relief in the SARFAESI application.

Issue (ii): Whether the contempt petition was maintainable before the Tribunal in respect of the alleged violation of the stay order.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded that, although a sale notice had been issued during the subsistence of the stay, the Tribunal was not a court and therefore lacked jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings for contempt of court. On that basis, the complaint of disobedience was not entertained as contempt.

Conclusion: The contempt petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal and was closed.

Final Conclusion: The SARFAESI challenge was allowed, the impugned possession and magistrate's orders were annulled, and the contempt complaint was not entertained for want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a SARFAESI challenge, failure of the secured creditor to establish compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure can justify setting aside the enforcement measures, while a tribunal lacking contempt jurisdiction cannot entertain a contempt petition for breach of its stay order.

---