THE HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DILIP BABASAHEB BHOSALE HONBLE SRI HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR & HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL
WRIT PETITION Nos. 17589 of 2014
27-11-2015
M/s.T.R.Jewellery, a proprietary concern Rep.by its Proprietor Thiriveedhi
Suresh Babu and Another..... PETITIONERS
M/s.State Bank of India, Vedayapalem Branch, Nellore and Another..RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION Nos. 17589 of 2014
27-11-2015
M/s.T.R.Jewellery, a proprietary concern Rep.by its Proprietor Thiriveedhi
Suresh Babu and Another..... PETITIONERS
M/s.State Bank of India, Vedayapalem Branch, Nellore and Another..RESPONDENTS
THE HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DILIP BABASAHEB BHOSALE
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
&
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL
WRIT PETITION Nos. 17589 & 17625 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
Disagreeing with the view expressed in W.P.No.5347 of 2014 another Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 24.07.2014 in W.P.Nos.17589 and 17625 of 2014 referred the following question to be decided by a Full Bench. In terms of the said order of reference, these Writ Petitions are posted before us to answer the question framed in the order of reference, which is as under :
Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising his jurisdiction in Corporation area can assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset and pass an order in favour of secured
creditor for the purpose of taking possession or control of any secured asset?
........
According to us, there is no casus omissus. We are not reading something into the provision which the Legislature never intended to nor are we trying to interpret the provision so as to defeat the
intention of the Legislature. We are only resorting to a purposive interpretation to arrive at the intention of the Legislature depending on the objects for which the enactment was made. As stated earlier, the intention of the Legislature was to achieve speedier recovery of the dues without the intervention of Tribunals or the Courts and for quick resolution of disputes arising out of the action taken for recovery of such dues. Ergo, by conferring jurisdiction on an authority to exercise
the power of assistance, which, his counterpart in a Metropolitan area, is exercising, the Court is not interpreting the provision in a different manner so as to negate the intent of the Legislature. Giving jurisdiction to Chief Judicial Magistrates in non-metropolitan area, who are exercising the same functions as that of Chief Metropolitan Magistrates in metropolitan areas, would not in anyway abrogate or contradict the words used in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, thereby causing prejudice to any of the parties. On the other hand, it would hasten the process of rendering assistance to the secured creditors to recover possession of their assets thereby achieving the object for which the SARFAESI Act has been introduced.
For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the reference holding that the nomenclature Chief Metropolitan Magistrate referred to in Section 14 is inclusive of Chief Judicial Magistrate in non-
metropolitan area and as such the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non-metropolitan area gets jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
These Writ Petitions are directed to be placed before appropriate Bench for hearing on merits in the light of the observations made in this judgment.
Comments
Post a Comment