AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK Vs. D. VISALAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.

(2.) The seminal question involved in these appeals is: whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short, "CJM") is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "2002 Act")? There are conflicting views of different High Courts on this question. The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand have interpreted the said provision to mean that only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short, "CMM") in metropolitan areas and the District Magistrate (for short, "DM") in non-metropolitan areas are competent to deal with such request. On the other hand, the High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh have taken a contrary view of the same provision, to mean that it does not debar or preclude the CJM in the non-metropolitan areas to exercise power under Section 14 of the 2002 Act.

(3.) The earliest decision is of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Muhammed Ashraf and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, 2009 AIR(Ker) 14 . The Court noted that Section 14 of the 2002 Act expressly refers to CMM in relation to metropolitan areas and DM for non-metropolitan areas. It then went on to observe that as the powers and functions of CJM in non-metropolitan areas and CMM in metropolitan areas are one and the same (with only difference that CMM exercises powers in metropolitan areas and CJM in non-metropolitan areas); and the expression CJM and CMM are interchangeably used namely, one is synonymous for the other depending on the area under its jurisdiction, by interpretative process, it concluded that in nonmetropolitan areas, apart from DM, the CJM is also competent to exercise powers under Section 14 of the 2002 Act. This decision was carried in appeal before this Court being SLP (C) No.1671 of 2009 which, however, came to be dismissed on 2nd February, 2009 as no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment was made out.