https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187698 The Court held that the Magistrate's role under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is limited to determining if the property is a secured asset, not deciding on exclusion under Section 31(i). As the property in question was deemed a secured asset, the Magistrate did not commit a jurisdictional error in appointing an Advocate Commissioner for possession. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the appointment and upheld the Magistrate's decision in the possession proceedings. en-us Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Nov 2016 11:19:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187698 The Court held that the Magistrate's role under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is limited to determining if the property is a secured asset, not deciding on exclusion under Section 31(i). As the property in question was deemed a secured asset, the Magistrate did not commit a jurisdictional error in appointing an Advocate Commissioner for possession. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the appointment and upheld the Magistrate's decision in the possession proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187698