<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (3) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418965</link>
    <description>Section 14(1A) of the SARFAESI Act permits the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, acting on the secured creditor&#039;s written application, to appoint an advocate commissioner to take possession of secured assets and forward them to the secured creditor. The expression &quot;any officer subordinate to him&quot; was read functionally, not as limited to service subordination, because the possession-taking exercise is ministerial and the Act is designed for speedy enforcement. An advocate commissioner, as an officer of the court, may therefore be treated as subordinate for this purpose. The contrary view was rejected, and the interpretation adopted by the Kerala, Madras and Delhi High Courts was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=671540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418965</link>
      <description>Section 14(1A) of the SARFAESI Act permits the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, acting on the secured creditor&#039;s written application, to appoint an advocate commissioner to take possession of secured assets and forward them to the secured creditor. The expression &quot;any officer subordinate to him&quot; was read functionally, not as limited to service subordination, because the possession-taking exercise is ministerial and the Act is designed for speedy enforcement. An advocate commissioner, as an officer of the court, may therefore be treated as subordinate for this purpose. The contrary view was rejected, and the interpretation adopted by the Kerala, Madras and Delhi High Courts was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>