Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Territorial Jurisdiction Error Leads Delhi High Court to Suspend Order: 'Balance the Equities' in Bank's Secured Asset Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today suspended an order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), North-West, Rohini, citing a territorial jurisdiction error. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna, addresses a complex case involving the enforcement of security interests under the SARFAESI Act.

The crux of the judgment revolves around the territorial jurisdiction of the CMM in a case filed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner, M/s Subhash Chand Kathuria, challenged the CMM's order on the grounds of jurisdictional overreach.

The petitioner had taken a credit limit from Punjab National Bank, offering property as collateral. Upon classification of the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), the bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The CMM, North-West, Rohini, passed an order allowing the bank to take possession of the property. The petitioner contested this, arguing that the property fell under the jurisdiction of the CMM, North District, not North-West.

Justice Pushkarna observed, "It is clear that the order...is clearly without any territorial jurisdiction." The court relied on a letter from the Office of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, which confirmed the jurisdictional lapse. Furthermore, the court highlighted the role of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in such matters.

The judgment elucidated the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly Sections 13(4) and 17, dealing with the secured creditor's rights and the aggrieved party's recourse to the DRT. The judgment also clarified the authority of CMMs under Section 14 of the Act, underscoring their jurisdictional limits in assisting secured creditors.

The High Court suspended the CMM's order for one week, allowing the petitioner to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The court emphasized the need to "balance the equities" in such cases, highlighting the importance of proper jurisdictional authority in legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: February 9, 2024.

M/s Subhash Chand Kathuria vs. Punjab National Bank

Latest Legal News