[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Yarramilli Mangamani vs The Union Government Of India on 9 July, 2025
APHC010117122025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3483]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WRIT PETITION NO: 6339/2025
Between:
1. YARRAMILLI MANGAMANI, WIFE OF GANESH TULASI RAM GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, A HOMEMAKER, A RESIDENT OF 32-1-13
CINEMA ROAD, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS FINANCE
SECRETARY, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDID, NEW DELHI.
2. M/S LCICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD REP, BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, ICICI HFC TOWER, ANDHERI (EAST),
MUMBAI 400 059.
3. M/S LCICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, REGIONAL OFFICE, GANTA ARCADE,
47-6-12,
12, 3RD LANE, TPC AREA OFFICE, 0PP. GAYATRI XEROX,
LAKSHMI SRINIVASAM, DWARAKA NAGAR, VISAKH
VISAKHAPATNAM
APATNAM
530016.
4. M/S LCICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICER, DR.N.V. RAMEPH COMPLEX, 13
13-2, 54,
MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA 533001.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances
stances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents no 2 to
4 taking symbolic possessi
possessionon of petitioners property forcefully bypassing
Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2004 as illegal arbitrary without
jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14,15 and 300A of the Constitution of
India, and violation of principles of natural justice consequently recall and set
HCJ & RCJ
W.P.No.6339/2025
2
aside the warrants in CrI. M.P No. 60 of 2025 on the file of the Honble Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, direct the
respondents to follow section 14 (1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and Order
of the High Court in W.P.No 2157 OF 2024 and to pass order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court deems fir and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay further proceedings in terms of the warrants in CrI. M.P No.60 of 2025 on
the file of the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court East Godavari,
Rajamahendravaram pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass
order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fir and necessary in the
circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
vacate the interim order dated 17-03-2025 passed in WP No. 6339 of 2025
and dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs, and to pass order or orders
as this Hon'ble Court deems fir and necessary in the circumstances of the
case.
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
implead the party petitioner as party respondent No.5 in WP No. 6339/2025
and also in lA No. 1/2025 in WP No. 6339/2025 and pass order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court deems fir and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 4 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in WP No. 6339/2025, dt.
17.3.2025 and pass order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fir and
necessary in the circumstances of the case.
HCJ & RCJ
W.P.No.6339/2025
3
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. BASHEER AHMED
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P SAI SURYA TEJA
2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 09.07.2025
ORDER
(Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati)
Challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2025 by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rajahmundry, that the same was passed in contravention of
Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act, 2002) and
without jurisdiction, since the property situate in Kakinada city, this writ
petition has been filed.
2. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that consequent to
classification of petitioner’s loan account as Non Performing Asset;
proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated and notice under
Section 13(2) demanding the petitioner to repay the amount was issued
followed by possession notice and notice for E-auction. That thereafter the
petitioner was informed by respondent no.4 that the property was sold in
public auction, which was found to be false upon the enquiries made by her
HCJ & RCJ
W.P.No.6339/2025
4
and immediately she filed writ petition vide W.P.No.2157 of 2024 and this
Court allowed the said writ petition directing the respondents therein that the
petitioner shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law. That the petitioner filed caveat petitions before the Junior,
Senior and District Courts at Kakinada, within whose jurisdiction her property
is situated, by duly serving copies of the caveats to respondent nos. 2 to 4.
It is further stated in the writ petition that respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed
petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari and by suppressing the truth
of location of property at Kakinada, obtained orders of appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner for taking symbolic possession of the property. That
though the petitioner had cleared the due amount under the loan account, the
Advocate Commissioner without serving any notice on her, took symbolic
possession of the property by affixing a notice on wall of the property. That
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari has no
jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, since the
property is situated in Kakinada and therefore, the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2025 is liable to be set aside. Hence the writ petition.
HCJ & RCJ
W.P.No.6339/2025
5
3. Heard Sri Basheer Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri
Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel for Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned
counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.
4. Sri Basheer Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration
would contend that since the subject property is situated in Kakinada; the III
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada is competent to exercise
jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, however, since the caveat
petition filed by petitioner was pending therein, with a view to avoid issuance
of notice to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 2 to 4, by suppressing truth of
location of the property, filed petition under Section 14 of the Act before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari and obtained
orders. Therefore, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2025 is ultra vires and
hence the same is unsustainable as also the symbolic possession taken by the
Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition with a
direction to respondent nos.2 to 4 to follow the procedure contemplated
under section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
5. Per contra, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel,
representing learned counsel for the respondent/bank, would contend that as
per Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any secured asset is situated, on
HCJ & RCJ
W.P.No.6339/2025
6
the request being made, shall assist in taking possession of such asset. By
placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v.
D.Visalakshmi1, the learned senior counsel would further contend that the
functions of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Chief Judicial Magistrate are
equivalent and similar in nature and therefore the Chief Judicial Magistrate is
equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The learned senior counsel would
further contend the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,
Rajahmundry has been appointed as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East
Godavari by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by
Sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as per
Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 05.07.2002. Therefore, since the property is
situated in East Godavari District, a non-metropolitan area, the said Court
alone can exercise jurisdiction under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and as
such the bank had rightly filed petition and the same was accordingly
disposed of by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The writ petition being meritless
deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the material available on record and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
1
. (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 47
HCJ & RCJ
W.P.No.6339/2025
7
7. Whatever may be the reason, the petitioner did not choose to file
any documents in proof of the contents pleaded in the petition including the
orders stated to have been passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition
filed by the petitioner vide W.P.No.2157 of 2024.
8. According to the petitioner, the writ petition filed by him earlier vide
W.P.No.2157 of 2024 was allowed by this Court with a direction that the
petitioner be not dispossessed from the subject property except under due
procedure contemplated under law.
9. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act specifies the procedure for obtaining
possession of the secured asset, which obligates the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession
of secured asset.
10. Secured creditor/respondent nos.2 to 4 filed a petition vide
Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2025 under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for appointment
of Advocate Commissioner and for issuance of warrant for taking physical
possession of the property of the petitioner before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari and accordingly an Advocate
Commissioner was appointed and he took symbolic possession of the property
on 22.02.2025.
HCJ & RCJ
W.P.No.6339/2025
8
11. The main thrust of contention of the petitioner is that since the
subject property situates at Kakinada, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rajamahendravaram has no jurisdiction to exercise powers under section 14
of the SARFAESI Act.
12. In Indian Bank v. D. Visalakshi, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the issue as to whether Chief Judicial Magistrate is
competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, held as follows:
“35. Indisputably, the expressions “CMM” and “DM” have not been defined in
the 2002 Act. That definition can thus, be traced to the provisions of CrPC. It is
also well established by now that the 2002 Act, is a self-contained code.
Concededly, the nature of inquiry to be conducted by the designated authorities
under the 2002 Act, is spelt out in Section 14 of the 2002 Act. The same is
circumscribed and is limited to matters specified in clauses (i) to (ix) of the first
proviso in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the 2002 Act, inserted in 2013. Prior to
the insertion of that proviso, it was always understood that in such inquiry, it is not
open to adjudicate upon contentious pleas regarding the rights of the parties in
any manner. The stated authorities could only do verification of the genuineness of
the plea and upon being satisfied that it is genuine, the adjudication thereof could
then be left to the court of competent jurisdiction.
36. Suffice it to observe that an inquiry conducted by the stated authority
under Section 14 of the 2002 Act, is a sui generis inquiry. In that, majorly it is an
administrative or executive function regarding verification of the affidavit and the
relied upon documents filed by the parties. That inquiry is required to be
concluded within the stipulated time-frame. While undertaking such an inquiry, as
is observed by this Court, the authority must display judicious approach, in
considering the relevant factual position asserted by the parties. That presupposes
that it is a quasi-judicial inquiry though, a non-judicial process. The inquiry does
not result in adjudication of inter se rights of the parties in respect of the subject
property or of the fact that the transaction is a fraudulent one or otherwise.
37. Notably, the powers and functions of CMM and CJM are equivalent and
similar, in relation to matters specified in CrPC. These expressions (CMM and CJM)
are interchangeable and synonymous to each other. Moreover, Section 14 of the
HCJ & RCJ
W.P.No.6339/20259
2002 Act does not explicitly exclude CJM from dealing with the request of the
secured creditor made thereunder. The power to be exercised under Section 14 of
the 2002 Act by the authority concerned is, by its very nature, non-judicial or
State’s coercive power. Furthermore, the borrower or the persons claiming through
borrower or for that matter likely to be affected by the proposed action being in
possession of the subject property, have statutory remedy under Section 17 of the
2002 Act and/or judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
that sense, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the borrower/lessee; nor is it
possible to suggest that they are rendered remediless in law. At the same time,
the secured creditor who invokes the process under Section 14 of the 2002 Act
does not get any advantage much less added advantage. Taking totality of all
these aspects, there is nothing wrong in giving expansive meaning to the
expression “CMM”, as inclusive of CJM concerning non-metropolitan area, who is
otherwise competent to discharge administrative as well as judicial functions as
delineated in CrPC on the same terms as CMM. That interpretation would make the
provision more meaningful. Such interpretation does not militate against the
legislative intent nor it would be a case of allowing an unworthy person or
authority to undertake inquiry which is limited to matters specified in Section 14 of
the 2002 Act.”
13. The above observations would make it clear that the expression
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate used in SARFAESI Act is inclusive of Chief
Judicial Magistrate in non-metropolitan area, who is otherwise competent to
discharge administrative as well as judicial functions as delineated in Code of
Criminal Procedure on the same terms as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Therefore, in non-metropolitan areas, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is
competent to discharge the functions of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under
the provisions of SARFAESI Act.
14. Copy of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 05.07.2002 placed on
record by learned senior counsel would indicate that the Principal Senior Civil
Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry was appointed as Chief
Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari. Therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
HCJ & RCJ
W.P.No.6339/2025
10
East Godavari can exercise jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act over East
Godavari District of which Kakinada city is a part wherein the subject property
is situated.
15. In view of the above, there is no lack of competence or jurisdiction
for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District in
appointing Advocate Commissioner and entrusting warrant for taking
possession of the property situate in Kakinada City under the provisions of the
16. Therefore, the ground urged by the petitioner is unsustainable.
Hence, the writ petition is meritless and the same deserves dismissal.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated
17.03.2025 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J
RR
[ad_2]
Source link