• Legal Era India
  • Legal Era Global
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
search-icon

Top Stories

HomeNewsFrom the Courts
28 Feb 2022 6:15 AM GMT

Supreme Court rules on the Sarfaesi Act

By: Nilima Pathak
Supreme Court rules on the Sarfaesi Act

Supreme Court rules on the Sarfaesi Act As per the law, an advocate should be regarded as subordinate to the district magistrate The Supreme Court has directed that advocates, as officers of the court, can be asked by the district magistrate to take control of defaulting borrowers' assets for handing over to secured creditors under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans


Supreme Court rules on the Sarfaesi Act

As per the law, an advocate should be regarded as subordinate to the district magistrate

The Supreme Court has directed that advocates, as officers of the court, can be asked by the district magistrate to take control of defaulting borrowers' assets for handing over to secured creditors under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Sarfaesi) Act, 2002.

Under the Act, on request of a secured creditor, the district magistrate (DM) or the chief metropolitan magistrate (CMM) would take possession of the secured assets of the defaulted borrowers and hand them over to the secured creditor.

Earlier, the Bombay High Court had ruled that the appointment of advocates by the DM or CMM was illegal as the advocates were not subordinate to the court. However, the Madras High Court, the Delhi High Court and the Kerala High Court had agreed on the decision to entrust the task to advocates under the Sarfaesi Act.

Ruling on a bunch of cross-appeals, the apex court bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice CT Ravikumar said that a DM or a CMM could appoint an advocate, as it would be impractical for the judicial officers to reach the location of each and every secured asset in busy financial cities like Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata and New Delhi.

Justice Khanwilkar maintained that the Sarfaesi Act mandated expeditious handing over of secured assets to the secured creditors. "We are persuaded to take the view that 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 Sarfaesi Act," he said.

The bench said, "An advocate is a guardian of constitutional morality and justice, equally with the judge. He has an important duty as that of a judge."

The top court added, "There is no reason to assume that the advocate appointed by the CMM/DM would misuse the task and that it will not be carried out strictly as per the law."

Nilima Pathak

Nilima Pathak

Next Story
TAGS:
  • #Supreme Court
  • #Justice AM Khanwilkar
  • #Justice CT Ravikmar
  • #Bombay High Court
  • #Madras High Court
  • #Delhi High Court
  • #Kerala High Court
  • #Sarfaesi Act
  • #Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Similar Posts
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2023© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X