Tahsildar must implement Section 14 SARFAESI possession orders within 45 days, absent legal impediment.

After the borrower’s loan account was classified as a non-performing asset, Bank of Baroda initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”), including proceedings under Section 14.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order under Section 14 on 22 June 2026.

The Bank alleged that, despite that order and its representations, the Tahsildar had not taken consequential steps to secure possession of the secured asset.

It sought directions requiring the authorities to decide its representations and facilitate possession.

1. Whether the Court should direct the concerned Tahsildar to implement the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and take consequential steps to hand over possession of the secured asset.

2. Whether such steps should be subject to any legal impediment or stay order issued by a competent court or authority.

The Court applied Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, under which the Chief Judicial Magistrate may assist a secured creditor in obtaining possession of a secured asset.

It directed implementation of the Section 14 order in accordance with law, while making the direction conditional on there being no legal impediment or stay order from a competent court or authority.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not state any broader legal doctrine.

The Court noted that the Bank had obtained a Section 14 order and that its grievance concerned the failure to take consequential action to provide possession, despite representations to the Tahsildar.

Given those circumstances, and the State’s lack of objection to a time-bound direction, the Court considered it appropriate to require implementation of the order.

It preserved the requirement that the authorities act in accordance with law and that the direction would not apply if a legal impediment or competent stay order existed.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and required the authority to proceed in accordance with law.