Mandamus issued: Authorities under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act must act ministerially and strictly within prescribed timelines.

The petitioner, a successful auction purchaser under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent bank to deliver vacant possession of a purchased property

Although the petitioner paid the full consideration and received a sale certificate on June 3, 2025, the bank failed to hand over physical possession

The respondent bank stated it had filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Chengalpattu, in August 2025, but the application remained unnumbered and pending due to a backlog of approximately 200 similar cases

1. Whether the Designated Authorities (CMM/CJM/DM) are performing their statutory obligations within the time limits prescribed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act

2. Whether the nature of the power exercised under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is adjudicatory or ministerial

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which mandates that the Designated Authority must assist secured creditors in taking possession of assets within a 30-day window, extendable to 60 days for recorded reasons

R.D. Jain and Company v. Capital First Limited [(2023) 1 SCC 675], which established that the power under Section 14 is a ministerial act where "time is of the essence"

Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC Private Ltd [(2023) 1 SCC 662] and Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. State of M.P. [W.P.No.26176/2023] to affirm that the authority cannot adjudicate disputes or look into the merits of the borrower’s objections

The Court observed that the CJM Chengalpattu’s failure to number or decide the application for nearly a year directly contravened the legislative intent of the SARFAESI Act

The Court reasoned that Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory process; the Magistrate's role is limited to verifying the territorial jurisdiction, the service of Section 13(2) notice, and the filing of a proper affidavit by the authorized officer

By treating Section 14 as a quasi-judicial proceeding or allowing "arguments on registration," Magistrates exceed their jurisdiction and create a "floodgate" of unnecessary writ petitions

The Court emphasized that any substantive disputes regarding the bank's actions must be relegated to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, not the Magistrate

It issued a mandamus directing the CJM Chengalpattu to dispose of the respondent’s application within 30 days and issued 11 general directions for all Magistrates/Collectors in Tamil Nadu, including mandatory immediate registration without pre-registration hearings, a prohibition on issuing notice to borrowers, and a mandate that any delay beyond 60 days must be explained to the High Court in the event of a writ petition.

No order as to costs was made