- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th June, 2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat on an application filed under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by the respondent-Bank. Mr. Sen, learned advocate for the petitioner raises a short point. He contends that in terms of section 14 of the Act, it is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a metropolitan area and the District Magistrate in a non-metropolitan area who are empowered to direct assistance of the police to be given for the purpose of possession of the properties in dispute and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 14 thereof. In support of his submission, Mr. Sen has relied on the Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Indusind Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 AIR(Bom) 2474 .
(2.) Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the Bank contends that the Bank was justified in approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate since in terms of provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non-metropolitan area and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a metropolitan area stand on the same footing. In support of his submission, he relies on the decision of a learned Judge of the Kerala High Court in Solaris System Put. Ltd. vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2006 3 KerLT 121.
(3.) I have heard learned advocates for the parties.;