Section 14 SARFAESI scrutiny is limited to statutory compliance; the Magistrate cannot adjudicate borrower disputes.

Canara Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Additional District Magistrate, Indore, seeking assistance to take physical possession of a secured asset.

The ADM rejected the application by order dated 7 September 2026, citing deficiencies in the documents and considering aspects of the Bank’s enforcement actions.

The Bank challenged that order under Article 226, contending that the ADM had exceeded the limited scope of review under Section 14; the State and the mortgagors opposed the petition, maintaining that relevant details and documents had not been provided.

Whether, while considering an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the ADM may adjudicate disputes or contentions raised by the parties, or is confined to examining the statutory requirements and supporting documents.

Whether the ADM’s order rejecting the Bank’s application should be set aside and the Bank permitted to file a fresh application with the relevant documents.

Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act govern service of the demand notice and the secured creditor’s enforcement measures following default; Section 14 provides for the Magistrate’s assistance in taking possession and requires scrutiny of the authorised officer’s affidavit and the relevant statutory requirements.

Relying on M/s R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd. and Others, the Court stated that a Section 14 proceeding does not involve adjudication of points raised by the borrower against the secured creditor’s possession measures.

The Magistrate’s inquiry is confined to the relevant Section 14 requirements, including the security interest and compliance with Sections 13(2) and 13(4); the Magistrate is not to conduct an adjudicatory process on the parties’ disputed contentions.

The Court held that the ADM had gone beyond the limited scrutiny required by Section 14 by entering into an adjudicatory process.

It explained that the ADM must examine the relevant documents and statutory compliance, rather than decide disputes raised by the parties.

Because the impugned order reflected an approach beyond that permitted scope, it could not stand.

The Court nevertheless directed that the Bank’s fresh application be accompanied by all relevant documents, thereby addressing the ADM’s stated concern about missing materials.

It directed the ADM to consider and decide that application in accordance with Section 14, without undertaking an adjudication of the parties’ contentions, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 30 days of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The petition was disposed of, with no further opinion expressed on the parties’ contentions.