https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270489 The Delhi High Court rejected the constitutional challenge to section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, holding that the possession mechanism and post-measure remedy under section 17 form a constitutionally valid recovery framework. It further held that a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acting under section 14 is not required to issue prior notice to a subsequent purchaser, because the Magistrate only verifies the secured creditor's affidavit and does not decide rival title claims; such objections lie before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition was also held not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy under section 17, and the petitioner was relegated to that forum. en-us Fri, 06 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Nov 2017 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270489 The Delhi High Court rejected the constitutional challenge to section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, holding that the possession mechanism and post-measure remedy under section 17 form a constitutionally valid recovery framework. It further held that a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acting under section 14 is not required to issue prior notice to a subsequent purchaser, because the Magistrate only verifies the secured creditor's affidavit and does not decide rival title claims; such objections lie before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition was also held not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy under section 17, and the petitioner was relegated to that forum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270489