The High Court enforced timely action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and directed the District Magistrate to expedite the disposal of the application.
The Sigle-Judge Bench of Jharkhand High Court Justice Ananda Sen reviewed a petition and observed that under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the District Magistrate is obligated to assist secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets within the prescribed timeframe of 30 days, and any undue delay undermines the statutory purpose and frustrates the creditor's rights. It directed immediate disposal of the pending application to uphold the legislative intent.
The High Court addressed a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking the disposal of an application submitted under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner had approached the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, on July 8, 2022, requesting assistance in taking possession of secured assets. Despite the statutory mandate under Section 14 to dispose of such applications within 30 days, the application remained pending, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.
The Court emphasized the essence of Section 14, which obligates the District Magistrate to assist secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets within a stipulated timeframe. It underscored that any delay undermines the legislative intent and frustrates the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the District Magistrate was not deemed an adjudicating authority but rather a facilitator to ensure peaceful possession of secured assets, with the ability to address any obstruction.
Highlighting the statutory obligation and the undue delay caused by the District Magistrate, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate to take immediate steps to dispose of the petitioner’s application within two weeks. The High Court reiterated that non-compliance with the timelines prescribed under Section 14 not only violates the provisions of the SARFAESI Act but also impedes the secured creditor's ability to recover debts effectively.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of, reinforcing the principle that administrative authorities must act promptly to uphold the intent and effectiveness of statutory provisions.
Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate represented the Petitioner.
Mr. Raunak Sahay, AC to GP-V appeared for the Respondent.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
Comments