38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, March 24, 2026
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


TOP STORIES

sc-sets-aside-ngt-order-for-temple-demolition-holds-tribunal-has-no-jurisdiction-over-encroachments-under-municipal-laws
Trending Judiciary
SC Sets Aside NGT Order for Temple Demolition; Holds Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction Over Encroachments Under Municipal Laws [Read Order]

Supreme Court sets aside NGT order to demolish Ghaziabad temple, ruling tribunal lacks jurisdiction over encroachments under municipal laws.

18 March, 2026 10:41 AM
meghalaya-hc-quashes-ghadc-order-making-st-certificate-mandatory-for-election-nominations
Trending Judiciary
Meghalaya HC Quashes GHADC Order Making ST Certificate Mandatory for Election Nominations [Read Order]

Meghalaya HC quashes GHADC notification mandating ST certificate for poll nominations, cites lack of Governor approval and due process.

18 March, 2026 03:51 PM
ignorance-of-law-no-defence-in-child-marriage-cases-subsequent-marital-harmony-cannot-erase-criminal-liability-karnataka-hc
Trending Judiciary
Ignorance of Law No Defence in Child Marriage Cases; Subsequent Marital Harmony Cannot Erase Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Karnataka HC rules ignorance of law no defence in child marriage cases; says later marital harmony cannot erase criminal liability under law.

18 March, 2026 04:41 PM
section-319-crpc-stage-is-not-a-mini-trial-trial-courts-cannot-apply-proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt-standard-sc
Trending Judiciary
Section 319 CrPC Stage Is Not a Mini Trial; Trial Courts Cannot Apply ‘Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Standard: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules Section 319 CrPC stage is not a mini trial; courts cannot apply proof beyond reasonable doubt while summoning additional accused.

18 March, 2026 04:51 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email