https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187697 The court dismissed the writ appeal, writ petitions, and criminal revision petitions, affirming that the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) has jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act and can appoint a Commissioner for taking possession of secured assets. It clarified that "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" and "Chief Judicial Magistrate" are used interchangeably based on jurisdiction. The constitutional validity of Section 14 was upheld, emphasizing that the Magistrate's role is to assist the secured creditor without adjudicating disputes. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187697 The court dismissed the writ appeal, writ petitions, and criminal revision petitions, affirming that the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) has jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act and can appoint a Commissioner for taking possession of secured assets. It clarified that "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" and "Chief Judicial Magistrate" are used interchangeably based on jurisdiction. The constitutional validity of Section 14 was upheld, emphasizing that the Magistrate's role is to assist the secured creditor without adjudicating disputes. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187697