https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267331 Orders under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act passed by an In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, when the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was absent, were not treated as void for want of jurisdiction. The provision contemplates limited, non-adjudicatory assistance for taking possession of secured assets, and the applications were moved before the competent forum. The de facto doctrine was applied to protect acts done under colour of lawful authority and to prevent collateral challenge between private parties. A later notification authorising the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to hold charge in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's absence further supported the legality of the orders, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. en-us Wed, 28 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267331 Orders under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act passed by an In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, when the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was absent, were not treated as void for want of jurisdiction. The provision contemplates limited, non-adjudicatory assistance for taking possession of secured assets, and the applications were moved before the competent forum. The de facto doctrine was applied to protect acts done under colour of lawful authority and to prevent collateral challenge between private parties. A later notification authorising the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to hold charge in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's absence further supported the legality of the orders, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267331