MUHAMMED ASHRAF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases, the main point argued by the petitioners is that Chief Judicial Magistrate is not vested with the power and jurisdiction to deal with application under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002) (in short 'the Securitisation Act ). In some of the writ petitions, constitutional validity of Section 14 of the Securitisation Act was also challenged, but, no arguments were raised regarding the same. In two writ petitions, it was also contended that Chief Judicial Magistrate, even if has jurisdiction, cannot depute a Commissioner for taking possession of the secured assets. We note that the Hon ble Supreme Court has in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. etc. v. Union of India and Ors.,2004 AIR(SC) 237 upheld the validity of the provisions of the Securitisation Act except sub.section 2 of Section 17 which was declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said Sub-section originally provided deposit of seventy five per cent of the amount claimed before entertaining an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. Thereafter, the Act was amended by Amendment Act 30 of 2004 and requirement of deposit of 75% of the amount claimed was deleted. In view of the above, it is not possible for the petitioners to challenge the constitutional validity of the section . Before answering the question whether Chief Judicial Magistrate has got power under Section 14, we may consider the scope of Section 14 of the Securitisation Act.

(2.) Section 14 of the Securitisation Act reads as follows:

(3.) That the Tribunal in exercise of its ancillary powers shall have jurisdiction to pass any stay/interim order subject to the condition as it may deem fit and proper to impose.