M/S SHUBHAM FLOUR MILL A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN THR ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI RAHUL PURUSHOTTAM TAPADIYA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER POLICE STATION AKOLA
Competency of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and Non-maintainability of Section 482 CrPC Petitions against Possession Orders due to Efficacious Alternative Remedy before the DRT.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:3635
Decision Date: 04-03-2026
List of Laws
The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; High Court Notification No. A-3902/2016; Inherent Powers of High Court under Section 482
- Facts: The applicants, a proprietorship concern and its proprietor, availed themselves of multiple loan facilities from Indian Bank (Non-applicant No. 2). Due to repayment defaults, the bank classified the accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, the bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Akola, seeking assistance to take possession of the secured immovable properties. The ACJM allowed the application and appointed a Court Commissioner to take possession. The applicants challenged this before the Sessions Court in revision, which was dismissed, leading to the present application before the High Court.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) as a Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, seeking to quash the orders passed by the ACJM, Akola, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola.
- Issue: Whether an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to exercise powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and whether a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act.
- Holding: Yes, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to pass orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. No, the application under Section 482 is not maintainable as the applicants have an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that under Section 12(2) of the CrPC and Section 10(2) of the BNSS 2023, an ACJM possesses all or any of the powers of a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) as directed by the High Court. Referring to a High Court notification dated 26 October 2016, the Court noted that Joint Civil Judges and JMFCs working at Taluka places were designated as ACJMs, effectively conferring the powers of a CJM upon them. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in "M/s. R.D. Jain and Co. vs. Capital First Ltd.", the Court held that judicial powers of a CJM and ACJM are at par. Furthermore, following "M/s. Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. V. Ganesh Murthy", the Court emphasized that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code. Any grievance regarding measures taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14 must be addressed via an appeal to the DRT under Section 17, making the high court's interference under inherent criminal powers inappropriate.
🔒 For Members Only