38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, November 15, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Magistrate not Required to Request Permission from Company Court While Handing Over Possession u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002: SC

By Atharwa Gauraha      09 November, 2020 08:21 PM      0 Comments
Magistrate not Required to Request Permission from Company CourtWhile Handing Over Possession u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002: SC

The Supreme Court held that a magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not necessary to obtain permission from the Judge of the Company Court before ordering the transfer of possession of the properties.

The bench consisting of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi stated that under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, a company court exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act has no control over the sale of a secured asset by a secured creditor in the exercise of powers available to that creditor.

In this case, the borrower company was issued a notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act 2002, demanding an amount of Rs. 309.91 crores. Meanwhile, another creditor initiated winding up proceedings against this company before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The company judge passed an order of winding up and an Official Liquidator was appointed.

In the meantime, the bank filed an application with the Chief Judicial Magistrate under the SARFEASI Act, 2002 based on section 14 for the appointment of a receiver to take over physical custody of the land. The property was taken into custody by the Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

In an interim order, in the written petition lodged by the creditor corporation, the High Court directed the property to be restored on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was unable to order the delivery of the property without receiving permission from the Company Court (High Court).

The Apex court bench thus noted, while setting aside the interim order:

"The interim order passed by the High Court is on the basis that the Magistrate could not have directed the possession to be taken without seeking permission from the Company Court. This Court in Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. Haryana Concast Limited and Another (2016) 4 SCC 47, concluded that a Company Court exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act has no control in respect of the sale of a secured asset by a secured creditor in the exercise of powers available to such creditor under SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, there is no requirement for the Magistrate exercising power under Section 14 SARFAESI Act to seek permission from the Company Judge before directing handing over of possession of a property."

In Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited, the Court held that, according to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the company judge should not intervene in a proceeding by a secured creditor to realize its secured interests.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-slams-maharashtra-police-over-four-year-delay-in-framing-charges-seeks-explanation-from-sp-and-trial-court
Trending Judiciary
SC Slams Maharashtra Police Over Four-Year Delay In Framing Charges; Seeks Explanation From SP And Trial Court [Read Order]

The Supreme Court criticises Maharashtra Police for a four-year delay in framing charges and seeks explanations from the SP and Trial Court over prolonged incarceration.

14 November, 2025 10:19 AM
jharkhand-hc-dismisses-pil-seeking-mandatory-disclosure-of-criminal-cases-against-election-candidates
Trending Judiciary
Jharkhand HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Mandatory Disclosure of Criminal Cases Against Election Candidates [Read Order]

Jharkhand High Court dismisses PIL seeking mandatory disclosure of pending criminal cases against election candidates, holding no statutory duty exists.

14 November, 2025 11:19 AM

TOP STORIES

state-govt-cannot-appeal-in-cbi-prosecuted-cases-supreme-court-reaffirms-lalu-prasad-yadav-judgment
Trending Judiciary
State Govt Cannot Appeal In CBI-Prosecuted Cases: Supreme Court Reaffirms Lalu Prasad Yadav Judgment [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court reaffirms Lalu Prasad Yadav ruling, holding that State Governments cannot appeal acquittals in CBI-investigated cases.

10 November, 2025 12:28 PM
managing-director-falls-within-definition-of-employer-under-minimum-wages-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Managing Director Falls Within Definition Of ‘Employer’ Under Minimum Wages Act: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court rules that a Managing Director qualifies as an “employer” under the Minimum Wages Act, upholding liability for unpaid wages.

10 November, 2025 12:48 PM
accused-can-rebut-presumption-of-debt-us-139-ni-act-by-showing-probable-circumstances-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Accused Can Rebut Presumption Of Debt U/S 139 NI Act By Showing Probable Circumstances: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court rules that an accused can rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act by proving absence of debt through probable circumstances.

10 November, 2025 01:16 PM
tenant-cannot-challenge-landlords-title-after-decades-of-paying-rent-sc
Trending Judiciary
Tenant Cannot Challenge Landlord’s Title After Decades Of Paying Rent: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that a tenant cannot dispute the landlord’s ownership after paying rent for decades, reinforcing the principle of estoppel in tenancy.

10 November, 2025 01:29 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email