REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.  16013 OF 2022

Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS & Anr.          ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

Phoenix ARC Private Limited & Ors.    …Respondent(s)

O R D E R

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment and order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the High

Court   of   Judicature   at   Bombay   in   Writ   Petition   No.

9749/2021, by which the Division Bench of the High Court

has   allowed   the   said   writ   petition   preferred   by   the

respondent No. 1 herein – secured creditor and has set

aside order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the designated

authority   under   Section   14   of   the   Securitisation   and

Reconstruction  of  Financial   Assets  and   Enforcement   of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the

SARFAESI   Act,   2002)   and   directed   the   designated

1

authority under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to dispose

of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act

afresh, legal heirs of original respondent No. 2 claiming to

be the tenant of the mortgaged property, have preferred

the present Special Leave Petition. 

2. The Religare Finvest Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the

Religare) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 6 crores in favour of the

borrowers.   The   said   loan   was   secured   by   a   registered

mortgage created by borrowers in favour of Religare in

respect of the property ­ secured assets. The borrowers

committed defaults in repayment of the said loan which

led to Religare classifying borrowers’ account as a Non­

Performing Asset (NPA). The Religare thereafter, issued a

notice   dated   13.04.2018   under   Section   13(2)   of   the

SARFAESI Act calling upon borrowers to pay the amount

then outstanding under the said facility. That thereafter,

by   a   Deed   of   Assignment   dated   29.09.2018,   Religare

assigned all its right, title, interest, and benefit under the

said loan agreement to respondent No. 1 herein – original

petitioner No. 1 before the High Court. Thus, respondent

No. 1 – original petitioner No. 1 stepped into the shoes of

2

Religare   and   became   the   secured   creditor   and   in   that

capacity issued a notice dated 21.05.2019 under Section

13(2)   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   to   borrowers   calling   upon

borrowers to make payment of a sum of Rs. 5,83,22,866/­.

That   thereafter,   the   secured   creditor   took   symbolic

possession of the secured assets under Section 13(4) of the

SARFAESI Act. On 21.09.2019, the same was intimated to

the borrowers vide their letter dated 21.09.2019. A public

notice  was   also  issued  by  the   secured  creditor   in two

newspapers   in   compliance   with   the   provisions   of   the

Security   Interest   (Enforcement)   Rules,   2002.   That

thereafter, the secured creditor filed an application under

Section  14   of  the   SARFAESI  Act   seeking   assistance   of

designated authority – respondent No. 3 herein – District

Magistrate, Nashik, for taking physical possession of the

secured assets. The petitioner herein – original respondent

No. 2 claiming to be a tenant in respect of the ground floor

plus first floor showroom along with service station on a

part   of   the   secured   assets   bearing   Nos.   465   and   463

sought to intervene in the said proceedings filed under

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner placed

3

reliance   upon   an   order   dated   20.04.2018   passed   in

Regular Civil Suit No. 58/2018 filed by him against one of

the   borrowers,   whereby   one   of   the   borrowers   was

restrained   from   dis­possessing   him   from   the   said

premises. At this stage, it is required to be noted that

neither the borrower(s) nor the petitioner(s) instituted any

proceedings   before   the   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal   (DRT)

under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the steps

taken   under   Section   13   of   the   SARFAESI   Act.   That

thereafter, the designated authority passed the following

order dated 27.08.2021 and declined to assist the secured

creditor in taking possession of the secured assets and

kept the said application pending by observing that after

termination of the tenancy rights of the petitioner by the

Finance Company by following due procedure of law the

further   orders   regarding   possession   of   the   mortgage

property will be decided. The order dated 27.08.2021 is as

under: ­ 

1. In consideration of the reasons recorded in the

above   referred   issues   and   conclusions,   the

Application of the Finance Company is kept for

decision.

2. After   termination of  the  tenancy  rights  of  the

third­person   Complainant   Shri.   Balkrishna

4

Rama   Tarle   by   the   Finance   Company   by

following due procedure of law the further orders

regarding possession of the mortgage property

will be decided.

3. If any party feel aggrieved due to this order, then

they may file an appeal under section 17 of the

Securitisation   Act,   2002   before   Hon’ble   Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai.

4. No order as to cost.”

2.1Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated

27.08.2021   passed   by   the   designated   authority   –

Additional District Magistrate, Nashik in not passing any

order of assisting the secured creditor in taking possession

of the secured assets in exercise of powers under Section

14 of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor preferred

writ   petition   before   the   High   Court.   By   the   impugned

judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court

has   set   aside   order   dated   27.08.2021   passed   by   the

designated   authority/Additional   District   Magistrate   by

observing that such an order is beyond the scope and

ambit of the powers to be exercised under Section 14 of

the SARFAESI Act. That thereafter, the Division Bench of

the   High   Court   has   directed   the   designated

authority/Additional   District   Magistrate   to   hear   and

5

dispose   of   the   application   under   Section   14   of   the

SARFAESI Act in accordance with the provisions of Section

14 of the SARFAESI Act.

2.2Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court, the third

party – petitioner(s) claiming to be a tenant in some of the

secured assets have preferred the present Special Leave

Petition. 

3. Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on

behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in

the facts and circumstances of the case and when the

petitioners claimed to be the tenant of the original landlord

with respect to some of the secured assets of which the

possession   was   sought   and   when   the   original   writ

petitioner stepped into the shoes of the original landlord as

rightly observed by the designated authority – Additional

District   Magistrate   unless   the   secured   creditor   who

stepped into the shoes of the original landlord initiates the

legal proceedings for eviction of the tenant cannot get the

possession   in   an   application   under   Section   14   of   the

SARFAESI Act. 

6

3.1It is vehemently submitted by Shri Navare, learned Senior

Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the

High Court ought to have appreciated that the tenancy was

subsisting and continuing since prior to the mortgage of

the property and therefore, their rights are to be protected

and   unless   and   until   the   proceedings   are   initiated   for

eviction of the tenant, the secured creditor who will be in

the   shoes   of   the   original   landlord,   cannot   get   the

possession   in   an   application   under   Section   14   of   the

SARFAESI Act. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of

this Court in the cases of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar

Vs.   International   Assets   Reconstruction   Company

Limited and Ors.; (2014) 6 SCC 1 and Vishal N. Kalsaria

Vs. Bank of India and Ors.; (2016) 3 SCC 762.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners at length. At the outset, it is required to be

noted that after initiation of the proceedings and taking

steps under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,

thereafter,   the   secured   creditor   has   approached   the

District   Magistrate   by   submitting   an   application   under

7

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and has requested the

District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate to assist

the secured creditor in obtaining the possession of the

secured assets. It is required to be noted that neither the

original   borrowers   nor   even   the   petitioners   who   are

claiming to be a tenant of the secured assets have initiated

any   proceedings   before   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal   under

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The proceedings before

the   District   Magistrate   were   under   Section   14   of   the

SARFAESI Act. In the said application under Section 14 of

the SARFAESI Act instead of passing any final order to

assist the secured creditor in getting the possession of the

secured assets and while keeping the said application, the

Additional District Magistrate has passed an order that

only after the termination of the tenancy rights of the

petitioner by the finance company (secured creditor) by

following due procedure of law the further orders regarding

possession of the mortgage property, the said application

shall   be   decided.     The   aforesaid   order   passed   by   the

Additional District Magistrate has been set aside by the

8

High Court which is the subject matter of the present

Special Leave Petition. 

5. Therefore,   the   short   question   which   is   posed   for

consideration of this Court is whether while exercising the

powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the District

Magistrate/designated authority could have passed such

an   order   that   unless   and   until   the   secured   creditor

terminates   the   tenancy   rights   of   the   third   person   by

following   due   procedure   of   law   and   further   orders

regarding possession of the mortgaged property then and

then   only   an   application   under   Section   14   of   the

SARFAESI Act will be decided?

5.1While considering the aforesaid question/issue, the scope,

ambit,   and   jurisdiction   of   the   District

Magistrate/designated authority under Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act are required to be considered. Section 14 of

the SARFAESI Act reads as under: ­

“14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate

to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured

asset.—(1) Where the possession of any secured assets is

required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the

secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the

secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured

creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control

of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief

Metropolitan   Magistrate   or   the   District   Magistrate   within

9

whose   jurisdiction   any   such   secured   asset   or   other

documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take

possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or

as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such

request being made to him—

(a)take possession of such asset and documents relating

thereto; and 

(b)   forward   such   asset   and   documents   to   the   secured

creditor: 

[Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall

be   accompanied   by   an   affidavit   duly   affirmed   by   the

authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that— 

(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and

the   total   claim   of   the   Bank   as   on   the   date   of   filing   the

application; 

(ii)the borrower  has created security  interest  over  various

properties   and   that   the   Bank   or   Financial   Institution   is

holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such

properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution

is within the limitation period; 

(iii)the borrower has created security interest over various

properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub­

clause (ii)above; 

(iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the

financial   assistance   granted   aggregating   the   specified

amount; 

(v)   consequent   upon   such   default   in   repayment   of   the

financial assistance the account of the borrower has been

classified as a non­performing asset; 

(vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required

by the provisions of sub­section (2) of section 13, demanding

payment   of   the   defaulted   financial   assistance   has   been

served on the borrower; 

(vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice

received   from   the   borrower   has   been   considered   by   the

secured   creditor   and   reasons   for   non­acceptance   of   such

objection or representation had been communicated to the

borrower; 

10

(viii)   the   borrower   has   not   made   any   repayment   of   the

financial   assistance   in   spite   of   the   above   notice   and   the

Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of

the secured assets under the provisions of sub­section (4) of

section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act; 

(ix)   that   the   provisions   of   this   Act   and   the   rules   made

thereunder had been complied with:

Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from

the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief

Metropolitan   Magistrate,   as   the   case   may   be,   shall   after

satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders

for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets

[within a period of thirty days from the date of application]

[Provided also that if no order is passed by the Chief

Metropolitan   Magistrate   or   District   Magistrate   within   the

said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he

may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass

the order within such further period but not exceeding in

aggregate sixty days.] 

Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit

stated   in   the   first   proviso   shall   not   apply   to   proceeding

pending   before   any   District   Magistrate   or   the   Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of

commencement of this Act.]

[(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,—

(i)to take possession of such assets and documents relating

thereto; and (ii) to forward such assets and documents to the

secured creditor.]

(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the

provisions   of   sub­section   (1),   the   Chief   Metropolitan

Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be

taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force,

as may, in his opinion, be necessary. 

(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the

District   Magistrate   [any   officer   authorised   by   the   Chief

Metropolitan   Magistrate   or   District   Magistrate]   done   in

pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any

court or before any authority.”

11

5.2On a fair reading of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it

appears that for taking possession of the secured assets in

terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured

creditor   is   obliged   to   approach   the   District

Magistrate/Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate   by   way   of   a

written application requesting for taking possession of the

secured assets and documents relating thereto and for

being forwarded to it (secured creditor) for further action.

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 SARFAESI Act from

the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such an

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 SARFAESI 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. As observed

and held by this Court in the case of NKGSB Cooperative

Bank Limited Vs. Subir Chakravarty & Ors.  (Civil Appeal

12

No. 1637/2022) decided on 25.02.2022, the aforesaid act

is a ministerial act. It cannot brook delay. Time is of the

essence and this is the spirit of the special enactment. In

the recent decision in the case of M/s R.D. Jain and Co.

Vs. Capital First Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 175/2022)

decided on 27.07.2022, this Court had an occasion to

consider   the   powers   exercisable   by   District

Magistrate/Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate   under   Section

14 of the SARFAESI Act. After considering the object and

purpose   of   Section   14   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   and   the

Scheme of the Act under Section 14, it is observed and

held in paragraphs 7 to 9 as under: ­ 

“7. Now so far as the powers exercisable by DM and CMM

under   Section   14   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   are   concerned,

statement of objects and reasons for which SARFAESI Act

has been enacted reads as under: ­

“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS 

The financial sector has been one of the key drivers in India's

efforts to achieve success in rapidly developing its economy.

While   the   banking   industry   in   India   is   progressively

complying   with   the   international   prudential   norms   and

accounting practices there are certain areas in which the

banking and financial sector do not have a level playing field

as compared to other participants in the financial markets in

the   world.   There   is   no   legal   provision   for   facilitating

securitisation   of   financial   assets   of   banks   and   financial

institutions. Further, unlike international banks, the banks

and financial institutions in India do not have power to take

possession of securities and sell them. Our existing legal

framework relating to commercial transactions has not kept

pace with the changing commercial practices and financial

13

sector reforms. This has resulted in slow pace of recovery of

defaulting   loans   and   mounting   levels   of   non­performing

assets   of   banks   and   financial   institutions.   Narasimham

Committee I and II and Andhyarujina Committee constituted

by  the Central Government for the purpose of examining

banking sector reforms have considered the need for changes

in   the   legal   system   in   respect   of   these   areas.   These

Committees, inter alia, have suggested enactment of a new

legislation   for   securitisation   and   empowering   banks   and

financial institutions to take possession of the securities and

to sell them without the intervention of the court. Acting on

these suggestions, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial   Assets   and   Enforcement   of   Security   Interest

Ordinance, 2002 was promulgated on the 21st June, 2002 to

regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets

and   enforcement   of   security   interest   and   for   matters

connected therewith or incidental thereto. The provisions of

the Ordinance would enable banks and financial institutions

to   realise   long­term   assets,   manage   problem   of   liquidity,

asset   liability   mismatches   and   improve   recovery   by

exercising powers to take possession of securities, sell them

and reduce nonperforming assets by adopting measures for

recovery or reconstruction.”   

Thus, the underlying purpose of the SARFAESI Act is

to empower the financial institutions in India to have similar

powers   as   enjoyed   by   their   counterparts,   namely,

international banks in other countries. One such feature is

to empower the financial institutions to take possession of

securities and sell them. The same has been translated into

provisions falling under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act.

Section 13 deals with enforcement of security interest. Sub­

Section (4) thereof envisages that in the event a default is

committed by the borrower in discharging his liability in full

within the period specified in sub­section (2), the secured

creditor may take recourse to one or more of the measures

provided in sub­section (4). One of the measures is to take

possession of the secured assets of the borrower including

the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for

realising   the   secured   asset.   That,   they   could   do   through

their   “authorised   officer”   as   defined   in   Rule   2(a)   of   the

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

7.1   After   taking   over   possession   of   the   secured   assets,

further steps to lease, assign or sale the same could also be

taken by the secured creditor. However, Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act predicates that if the secured creditor intends

to take possession of the secured assets, must approach the

14

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 SARFAESI Act. As noted earlier, 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.

7.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that along with

insertion   of   sub­section   (1A),   a   proviso   has   also   been

inserted in sub­section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act

whereby   the   secured   creditor   is   now   required   to   comply

certain   conditions   and   to   disclose   that   by   way   of   an

application   accompanied   by   affidavit   duly   affirmed   by   its

authorised officer in that regard. Sub­Section (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. As observed and held by this

Court in the case of NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd.  (supra),

the insertion of sub­section (1A) is not to invest a new power

for the first time in the CMM/DM as such. 

8. Thus, considering the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, it is

explicit   and   crystal   clear   that   possession   of   the   secured

assets   can   be   taken   by   the   secured   creditor   before

confirmation of sale of the secured assets as well as post­

confirmation of sale. For taking possession of the secured

assets, it could be done by the “authorised officer” of the

Bank   as   noted   in   Rule   8   of   the   Security   Interest

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 

8.1 However, for taking physical possession of the secured

assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the

secured creditor is obliged to approach the CMM/DM by way

of a written application requesting for taking possession of

the secured assets and documents relating thereto and for

being forwarded to it (secured creditor) for further action.

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 SARFAESI Act from

the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such an

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 SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that regard, to

15

take   possession   of   the   secured   assets   and   documents

relating   thereto   and   to   forward   the   same   to   the   secured

creditor at the earliest opportunity. As mandated by Section

14 of the SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM has to act within the

stipulated   time   limit   and   pass   a   suitable   order   for   the

purpose of taking possession of the secured assets within a

period of 30 days from the date of application which can be

extended for such further period but not exceeding in the

aggregate,   sixty   days.   Thus,   the   powers   exercised   by   the

CMM/DM is a ministerial act. He cannot brook delay. Time

is of the essence. This is the spirit of the special enactment.

As observed and held by this Court in the case of  NKGSB

Cooperative   Bank   Ltd.  (supra),   the   step   taken   by   the

CMM/DM while taking possession of the secured assets and

documents relating thereto is a ministerial step. It could be

taken   by   the   CMM/DM   himself/herself   or   through   any

officer   subordinate   to   him/her,   including   the   advocate

commissioner   who   is   considered   as   an   officer   of   his/her

court.   Section   14   does   not   oblige   the   CMM/DM   to   go

personally and take possession of the secured assets and

documents relating thereto. Thus, we reiterate that the step

to   be   taken   by   the   CMM/DM   under   Section   14   of   the

SARFAESI Act, is a ministerial step. While disposing of the

application   under   Section   14   of   the   SARFAESI   Act,   no

element   of   quasi­judicial   function   or   application   of   mind

would require.  The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide

the correctness of the information given in the application

and nothing more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an

adjudicatory   process   qua   points   raised   by   the   borrower

against the secured creditor taking possession of secured

assets.    

9. Thus, in view of the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, more

particularly, Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the nature

of the powers to be exercised by learned Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate/learned District Magistrate, the High Court in the

impugned judgment and order has rightly observed and held

that   the   power   vested   in   the   learned   Chief   Metropolitan

Magistrate/learned   District   Magistrate   is   not   by   way   of

persona designata.”   

Thus,   the   powers   exercisable   by   CMM/DM   under

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and

Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua

16

points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor

taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the

matter once all the requirements under Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured

creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist

the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as

the documents related to the secured assets even with the

help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help

of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At

that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the

dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor

and/or between any other third party and the secured

creditor   with   respect   to   the   secured   assets   and   the

aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the

proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before

Debts Recovery Tribunal. Under the circumstances in the

present case no error has been committed by the High

Court in setting aside the order dated 27.08.2021 passed

by   the   designated   authority   keeping   the   application

pending   till   the   secured   creditor   initiates   the   legal

proceedings   for   eviction   of   the   tenant   cannot   get   the

17

possession   in   an   application   under   Section   14   of   the

SARFAESI Act. The High Court has rightly directed the

designated   authority   to   proceed   further   with   the

application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and to

dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 

6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this

Court   in   the   case   of  Harshad   Govardhan   Sondagar

(supra) by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner is concerned, the same shall not be applicable to

the facts of the case on hand, what is observed by this

Court in the aforesaid case is the DM/CMM has to give a

notice   and   opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   person   in

possession of the secured assets claiming to be a “Class (1)

or (2)” lessee of mortgagor/borrower, as well as to secured

creditor, consistent with principles of natural justice, and

then   take   a   decision.   In   the   said   decision,   it   is   not

observed that the DM/CMM has to adjudicate the rights

between the parties.

7. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this

Court in the case of  Vishal N. Kalsaria  (supra) by the

18

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is

concerned, the said decision shall also not be applicable to

the facts of the case on hand. In the said decision, the

question before this Court was of conflict of claim under

the   Maharashtra   Rent   Control   Act,   1999   and   the

provisions   of   the   SARFAESI   Act,   and   which   law   will

prevail. The scope and ambit of the powers to be exercised

under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were not directly in

question before this Court. Even as observed and held by

this Court in the aforesaid decision, a judgment cannot be

interpreted and applied to fact situations by reading it as a

statute. One cannot pick up a word or sentence from a

judgment to construe that it is the ratio decidendi on the

relevant aspects of the case (para 33). 

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we

are of the opinion that the High Court has not committed

any error in passing the judgment and order and directing

the   designated   authority   to   dispose   of   the   application

under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. We are in complete

19

agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The

Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. 

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]

20