Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘CJM’) which contained a direction for him to approach for police assistance in getting the possession of secured asset after depositing the expenses of such assistance, a Single Judge Bench of Ashutosh Kumar, J., held that there is no provision under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) which asks the secured creditors to deposit any expenses of assistance to the police authorities in taking possession of the secured asset.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the said direction and directed the police authorities to comply with the said order at the earliest.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for getting the possession of the secured assets of Respondents 5 and 6 whereby the CJM directed the petitioner to approach the police department for taking such possession after depositing the expenses of such police assistance.
Thereafter, the police directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 6,34,383 for providing police assistance in taking possession of the secured asset and the loan amount to be recovered was Rs 9,90,000.
Analysis and Decision
The Court specified that there is no provision under Section 14 of the SARFAESI 2002 which may authorise the Magistrate to direct the secured creditor to deposit any expenses of police assistance in taking possession of the secured asset. Hence, the Court set aside the direction given to the petitioner for depositing the expenses of police assistance by the CJM.
Further, the Court directed that petitioner to move the execution application before the police authorities concerned to comply with the said order and directed the police authorities concerned to comply with the same at the earliest.
[Tyger Home Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5506, decided on 30-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Kartikeya Sharma, Adv., Puneet Chahar, Adv. and Mukul Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent: Shubham Sharma, Adv. and Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C