9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 928 - HC - Indian LawsChief Judicial Magistrate exercising his jurisdiction in Corporation area - whether CJM 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? - Held that - 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in relation to CJM and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM). 3. Applicability of Section 3 of the Cr.P.C. to the SARFAESI Act. 4. Legislative intent and statutory interpretation of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Case law and judicial precedents on the jurisdiction of CJM under the SARFAESI Act. Issue-Wise Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act: The primary issue was whether the CJM in a non-metropolitan area has the jurisdiction to assist a secured creditor in taking possession of a secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court examined the statutory language and legislative intent, concluding that the CJM is included in the nomenclature of CMM for the purposes of Section 14. The court emphasized that the powers and functions of CJM and CMM are essentially the same, differing only by their jurisdictional area. 2. Interpretation of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in relation to CJM and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM): Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act specifically mentions CMM and District Magistrate (DM) but does not explicitly include CJM. The court noted that the statutory language should be interpreted to include CJM in non-metropolitan areas, as the functions and powers of CJM and CMM are synonymous. The court referenced Section 3(1)(d) and Section 3(2) of the Cr.P.C., which equate the roles of CJM and CMM depending on their jurisdictional area. 3. Applicability of Section 3 of the Cr.P.C. to the SARFAESI Act: The court discussed whether Section 3(2) of the Cr.P.C., which equates CJM with CMM in non-metropolitan areas, applies to the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are applicable to the SARFAESI Act, as indicated by Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, which states that the Act's provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of other laws. Therefore, the court concluded that the Cr.P.C. provisions could be used to interpret the SARFAESI Act. 4. Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act: The court examined the legislative intent behind the SARFAESI Act, which aims to facilitate the speedy recovery of dues without court intervention. The court emphasized that interpreting Section 14 to include CJM aligns with the Act's objective of expeditious recovery. The court also referenced the principle of purposive interpretation, which seeks to fulfill the legislative intent rather than adhering strictly to literal interpretations that could undermine the Act's objectives. 5. Case Law and Judicial Precedents on the Jurisdiction of CJM under the SARFAESI Act: The court reviewed various judgments from different High Courts, including the Kerala High Court, Bombay High Court, and Madras High Court. The Kerala High Court and a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had previously held that CJM has jurisdiction under Section 14. However, the Madras High Court's Full Bench and the Bombay High Court's Division Bench had contrary views. The court reconciled these judgments by emphasizing the applicability of Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, which supports the inclusion of CJM. Conclusion: The court concluded that the nomenclature "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act includes the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" in non-metropolitan areas. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent of the SARFAESI Act and facilitates the Act's objective of speedy recovery of secured assets. The court directed that the writ petitions be placed before an appropriate bench for further hearing on merits.
|
