Skip to main content

For Purpose Of SARFAESI Act, Addl DM/Addl CMM Has Judicial Powers Similar To That Of DM/ CMM

In Capital First Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has held that for the purposes of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not a persona designata and the Additional District Magistrate or Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has the same judicial powers.

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act requires the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist a secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.

It has been stated in the petition that in view of amended provisions of Section 14 of the Act, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate is required to pass suitable orders within 30 days from the date of application, which period could be extended not exceeding in aggregate 60 days.

However, when the high court directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to ‘endeavour to dispose of’ petitioner’s pending applications, the CMM stated in his reply that as on August 9, 2017, some 924 cases were pending under the SARFAESI Act. Out of these cases, 509 were filed in 2017. Thus, as per directions of the high court to give preference to old cases over the new ones, the applications are yet to be decided, the CMM’s reply stated.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/purpose-sarfaesi-act-addl-dm-addl-cmm-judicial-powers-similar-dm-cmm-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.
Post a Comment
Read more