POULY @ THRESSIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition calling into question the statutory competence of a Chief Judicial Magistrate to act under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

(2.) According to the petitioners, Section 14 vests jurisdiction, to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of a secured asset, only with a Metropolitan Magistrate or a District Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset is situated or found. They contend that since the Government of Kerala has not declared Ernakulam District as a Metropolitan area under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chief Judicial Magistrate would obtain no jurisdiction to act under the mandate of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, because the word 'Magistrate' in Section 14 can be construed only in relation to a Metropolitan area, as being a Metropolitan Magistrate.

(3.) After predicating as afore, the petitioners submits that these issues are now under the seizin of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.4665/2016, in a matter arising from a judgment of this Court in P.M.Kelukutty & Ors. v. Young Mens Christian Association & Ors. (W.A.No.135/2016 dated 11.02.2016). The petitioners, therefore, pray that the impugned order, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate acting under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, be set aside as having been issued without jurisdiction.