Supreme Court: Holding Advocates to be officers of the Court, the bench of AM Khanwilkar* and CT Ravikumar, JJ t has held that it would be open to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM)/District Magistrate (DM) to appoint an advocate commissioner to assist him/her in execution of the order passed under Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The Court was hearing the appeal against the Bombay High Court judgment wherein it was held that that Section 14(1A) of the 2002 Act does not permit the CMM/DM to authorise an advocate. The language used in the provision is amply clear. Such delegation could be done only to an officer subordinate and none else. The High Court rejected the argument that the overburdened CMM/DM had inadequate subordinate staff and it would be difficult, if not virtually impossible for the secured creditor to take possession of and realise the outstanding dues by disposing the secured asset. The High Court was not impressed with that argument and preferred to strictly construe the stated provision.
This issue arose because of the expression used in the said provision, “may authorise any officer subordinate to him”.
Section 14 of the 2002 Act predicates that if the secured creditor intends to take possession of the secured assets, must approach the CMM/DM by way of an application, in writing, and on receipt of such request, the CMM/DM must move into action in right earnest. After passing an order thereon, he/she (CMM/DM) must proceed to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto for being forwarded to the secured creditor in terms of Section 14(1) read with Section 14(2) of the 2002 Act. Section 14(2) is an enabling provision and permits the CMM/DM to take such steps and use force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. This position obtained even before the amendment of 2013 i.e., insertion of sub-Section (1A) and continues to this date.
Incidentally, along with insertion of sub-Section (1A), a proviso has also been inserted in sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the 2002 Act whereby the secured creditor (Bank/Financial Institution) is now required to comply certain conditions and to disclose that by way of an application 28 accompanied by affidavit duly affirmed by its authorised officer in that regard. Sub-Section (1A) is in the nature of an explanatory provision and it merely restates the implicit power of the CMM/DM in taking services of any officer subordinate to him. The insertion of sub-Section (1A) is not to invest a new power for the first time in the CMM/DM as such.
Thus, the question to be decided before the Supreme Court was whether the past practice followed by most of the courts across the country in recognising the power of the CMM/DM to appoint an advocate as a commissioner to assist him in merely taking possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor, needs to be discontinued as being prohibited owing to insertion of sub-Section (1A)?
At the outset the Court observed that the construct of the provision must depend on the context of the legislative intent and the purpose for which such dispensation has been envisaged. The setting in which the expression has been used in the concerned section of the Act would assume significance.
The Court observed that the statutory obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM is to immediately move into action after receipt of a written application under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act from the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such application is received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass an order after verification of compliance of all formalities by the secured creditor referred to in the proviso in Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act and after being satisfied in that regard, to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity. The latter is a ministerial act. It cannot brook delay. Time is of the essence. This is the spirit of the special enactment. However, it is common knowledge that the CMM/DM are provided with limited resources. That inevitably makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the CMM/DM to fulfil his/her obligations with utmost dispatch to uphold the spirit of the special legislation.
“It is common knowledge that in the respective jurisdictions, there is only one CMM/DM. If he is expected to reach at every location himself for taking possession, in some jurisdictions it would be impracticable, if not impossible, for him to do so owing to large number of applications in the given jurisdiction being a commercial city.”
Hence, strict construct would defeat the legislative intent and purpose for enacting the 2002 Act. Indeed, logistical problems of the Office of the CMM/DM cannot be the basis to overlook the statutory provision. However, an advocate is and must be regarded as an officer of the court and subordinate to the CMM/DM for the purposes of Section 14(1A) of the 2002 Act.
The Court, further, held that the Advocate Commissioner is not a new concept. The advocates are appointed as Court Commissioner to perform diverse administrative and ministerial work as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure. An advocate is an officer of the court.
“It is well established that an advocate is a guardian of constitutional morality and justice equally with the Judge. He has an important duty as that of a Judge. He bears responsibility towards the society and is expected to act with utmost sincerity and commitment to the cause of justice. He has a duty to the court first. As an officer of the court, he owes allegiance to a higher cause and cannot indulge in consciously misstating the facts or for that matter conceal any material fact within his knowledge.”
The Court, hence, observed that sub-Section (1A) of Section 14 of the 2002 Act is no impediment for the CMM/DM to engage services of an advocate (an officer of the court) — only for taking possession of secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor in furtherance of the orders passed by the CMM/DM under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act in that regard.
The Court made clear that it does not follow that the advocate so appointed needs to be on the rolls in the Office of the CMM/DM or in public service. There is intrinsic de jure functional subordinate relationship between the CMM/DM and the advocate being an officer of the court. The apprehension of the borrowers about improper execution of orders of the CMM/DM passed under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act by the Advocate Commissioner, is plainly misplaced. Further, being an officer of the court and appointed by the CMM/DM, the acts done by the Advocate Commissioner would receive immunity under Section 14(3) of the 2002 Act — as an officer authorised by the CMM/DM.
“There is no reason to assume that the advocate so appointed by the CMM/DM would misuse the task entrusted to him/her and that will not be carried out strictly as per law or it would be a case of abuse of power. Rather, going by the institutional faith or trust reposed on advocates being officers of the court, there must be a presumption that if an advocate is appointed as commissioner for execution of the orders passed by the CMM/DM under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act, that responsibility and duty will be discharged honestly and in accordance with rules of law.”
[NKGSB Cooperative Bank Limited v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 239, decided on 25.02.2022]
*Judgment by: Justice AM Khanwilkar
For Banks: Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee, and Advocates Viraj Kadam, Manish Shanker Srivastava, Devendra Kumar Singh and M.L. Ganesh,
For Borrowers: Advocate B. Raghunath,
For State of Maharashtra: Advocate Rahul Chitnis