Chhattisgarh HC Sends SBI’s SARFAESI Plea Back For Fresh Decision, Says CJM Overlooked ‘Rs In Crores’ In Documents

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate misappreciated the documents accompanying the Section 14 application by finding that the unit of the amounts was unspecified.

The court held

The High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 24 June 2026 and remitted the Section 14 application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, for fresh decision in accordance with law and on its own merits.

It also directed

The Bank was permitted to produce additional supporting documents. The writ petition was allowed to that extent.

01Facts

The State Bank of India filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, seeking assistance in taking possession of secured property. The Magistrate rejected the application on 24 June 2026, reasoning, among other things, that the documents did not specify the unit of the amounts stated.

¶ 2–5

The Bank challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the documents expressly stated “Rs. in crores” and that the Magistrate had misread them. The High Court also noted that loan-transaction documents filed with the writ petition had not been submitted with the original Section 14 application.

¶ 2–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate misappreciated the documents accompanying the Section 14 application by finding that the unit of the amounts was unspecified.

¶ 3, 5

ii.2. Whether the rejection of the Section 14 application should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on the documents filed with that application.

¶ 5–7

03Law Applied

Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, provides the statutory process through which a secured creditor may seek the Magistrate’s assistance in obtaining possession of secured assets.

¶ 2, 3

In exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may set aside an order affected by an apparent misappreciation of the record and remit the matter for fresh consideration. The Magistrate must decide the application in accordance with law on its own merits, considering the documents submitted with it.

¶ 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14

04Reasoning

The High Court inspected the documents accompanying the Section 14 application and found that the relevant tables expressly identified the amounts as “Rs. in crores,” contrary to the Magistrate’s finding that no unit had been specified. It therefore concluded that the documents had been misappreciated.

¶ 5–7

However, the loan-transaction documents later produced with the writ petition had not accompanied the original application. The Court accordingly remitted the matter for fresh consideration based on the application’s accompanying documents, while permitting the Bank to produce additional documents before the Magistrate.

¶ 5–7