District Magistrates must strictly observe mandatory statutory timelines for deciding Section 14 SARFAESI applications.

In brief

The question

Whether the District Magistrate is mandatorily required to decide an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within the specific timelines prescribed by the statute.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and directed Respondent No. 1 (District Magistrate, Bilaspur) to conclude the proceedings in Revenue Case No. 202512072100003/B-121 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within a further period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the court’s order

It also directed

The writ petition and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly

01Facts

The Petitioner (Bank of Baroda) initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against Respondent No. 2 (Borrower) after her account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA)

¶ 2

On 02.12.2025, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before Respondent No. 1 (District Magistrate, Bilaspur) to take possession of the secured assets, which was registered as Revenue Case No. 202512072100003/B-121

¶ 2

Despite the lapse of approximately three months, the District Magistrate failed to pass orders on the application

¶ 5

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for the timely disposal of the case as per statutory timelines

¶ 2

02Issues

i.Whether the District Magistrate is mandatorily required to decide an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within the specific timelines prescribed by the statute.

¶ 2 & 4

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)

¶ 3

Under the second proviso to Section 14, the District Magistrate (DM) or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) must pass orders for taking possession of secured assets within 30 days from the date of the application

¶ 3

The third proviso allows for an extension of this period for reasons recorded in writing, provided that the total aggregate period does not exceed 60 days

¶ 3

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 13 Section 14

04Reasoning

The court examined the procedural requirements of Section 14, noting that once a secured creditor files an application accompanied by a valid affidavit, the DM/CMM must satisfy themselves regarding the contents of the affidavit and pass orders for possession

¶ 4

In the present case, the court observed that three months had passed since the Petitioner filed the application on 02.12.2025

¶ 5

This delay exceeded the maximum statutory limit of 60 days (30 days initial + 30 days extension) prescribed by the SARFAESI Act

¶ 4-5

The court held that such non-compliance with statutory timelines is not in accordance with the law and cannot be appreciated

¶ 5