NDLI: The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	s.14 SARFASI ACT Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) u/s. 14 Competency of
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.14 – Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) u/s. 14 – Competency of – There were conflicting views of different High Courts regarding the competency of the CJM to process the request of the secured creditors to take possession of the secured asset u/s. 14 of the 2002 Act – The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand interpreted the said provision to mean that only Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) in metropolitan areas and the District Magistrate (DM) in non-metropolitan areas were competent to deal with such request – However, the High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh took 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 u/s. 14 of the 2002 Act – On appeal, held: The powers and functions of the CMM and the CJM are equivalent and similar, in relation to matters specified in the Cr.P.C – These expressions (CMM and CJM) are interchangeable and synonymous to each other – Moreover, s.14 does not explicitly exclude the CJM from dealing with the request of the secured creditor made thereunder – The power to be exercised u/s.14 of the 2002 Act by the concerned Authority is, by its very nature, non-judicial or State’s coercive power – Taking totality of all the aspects, there is nothing wrong in giving expansive meaning to the expression ‘CMM’, as inclusive of CJM concerning non-metropolitan area, who is otherwise competent to discharge administrative as well as the Judicial functions as delineated in the Cr.P.C. on same terms as CMM – Therefore, the CJM is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured Creditor u/s. 14 of the Act – Accordingly, the view taken by the High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh were upheld and approved. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – ss. 14, 35 and 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Does Provisions of the 2002 Act override the provisions of the Cr.P.C, whereunder the functions to be discharged by the CMM are similar to that of the CJM – Held: The expressions ‘CMM’ and ‘CJM’ are used interchangeably in Cr. P.C. and are considered as synonymous to each other – s.14, even if read literally, in no manner denotes that allocation of jurisdictions and powers to CMM and CJM under the Code of Criminal Procedure are modified by the 2002 Act – Thus understood, s.14 of the 2002 Act, stricto sensu, cannot be construed as being inconsistent with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or vice-versa in that regard – Further, s.37 of the 2002 Act predicates that the provisions of the 2002 Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be in addition to the stated enactments or “any other law for the time being in force” – Having said that the Provisions of the s.14 of the 2002 Act are in no way inconsistent with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must then follow that the provisions of the 2002 Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the Code.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1067
Petitioner	The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank
Respondent	D. Visalakshi And Anr.
SCR	[2019] 13 S.C.R. 177
Judgement Date	2019-09-23
Case Number	6295

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Anr. Vs. M/s. Ashok Saw Mill

M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. Etc. Etc.

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd.v. Babulal Lade & Ors. Vs. Babulal Lade & Ors.

Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Canara Bank and Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Pani and Anr.

Madan Kumar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur & Ors.

The Authorised Officer, Thanjavur & Anr. Vs. S. Naganatha Ayyar

Gulbarga University Vs. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali and Anr.

The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India Vs. Shanmugavelu

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi and Anr.

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Anr. Vs. M/s. Ashok Saw Mill

M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. Etc. Etc.

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd.v. Babulal Lade & Ors. Vs. Babulal Lade & Ors.

Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Canara Bank and Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Pani and Anr.

Madan Kumar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur & Ors.

The Authorised Officer, Thanjavur & Anr. Vs. S. Naganatha Ayyar

Gulbarga University Vs. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali and Anr.

The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India Vs. Shanmugavelu

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D. Visalakshi and Anr.