Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr.Koppuravuri Naveen Kumar vs The State Bank Of India on 30 January, 2026
APHC010207152023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Friday, the thirtieth day of January two thousand and twenty six
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi
Contempt Case No.2885 of 2023
Between:
Mr.koppuravuri Naveen Kumar ...Petitioner
and
Mr. N.V.V.Subrahmanyam and Others ...Contemnors
Contemnors
Counsel for the petitioner:
etitioner:
1. T.Lakshmi
.Lakshmi Narayana
Counsel for the Contemnor
Contemnors:
1. P. A.Seshu
2. V.Maheswar
.Maheswar Reddy
3. V.Dyumani
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.C.No.2885 of 2023
ORDER:
This petition is filed under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful and deliberate flouting of the order of this Court, dated 10.04.2023, in W.P.No.8581 of 2023 and to pass any other order deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner initially filed contempt case against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 who are D.Suresh, Inspector of Police / Station House Officer, Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada and Sri N.V.V.Subrahmanyam, Advocate Commissioner enrolled in the Bar Association, City Civil Courts, Vijayawada.
3. On 24.08.2023, the petition against D.Suresh / respondent No.1 was requested to be dropped subsequent to filing of counter on 17.08.2023 by this respondent.
4. The respondent No.3 was added as per the order dated 21.09.2023 in I.A.No.03 of 2023. I.A.No.3 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No.3 to recall the order dated 24.08.2023 in I.A.No.03 of 2023. However, today i.e., on 19.12.2025, the petitioner dropped the proceedings against the respondent No.3 as well, because the then Branch Manager of the respondent No.3, by name, Mr. Rizwan, who was alleged to be the person responsible for the contempt, passed away.
5. The case of the petitioner is briefly, as follows:
a. The petitioner filed W.P.No.8581 of 2023 seeking writ of mandamus declaring that the Station House Officer, Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada / respondent No.2 therein and Mr.N.V.V.Subrahmanyam / respondent No.3 therein cannot execute order of warrant, dated 28.02.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, 3 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 after the date of expiry on 30.03.2023 in respect of the commercial / residential building bearing D.No.27-1/5-7, Municipal Ward No.23, Block No.5, Kruthiventivari Lane, Governorpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District and any action to dispossess the petitioner from the said property without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice etc. Along with the writ petition, I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking interim relief was filed. At the time of admission of the writ petition, on 10.04.2023, in I.A.No.1 of 2023 which was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking the relief to direct the respondents Nos.2 and 3 therein not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said property, except in accordance with law, pending disposal of the writ petition, this Court passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent has been trying to execute the warrant which is returnable by 30.03.2023, without the same being renewed by the competent authority.
2. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30161 of 2021 dated 18.02.2022, wherein, under similar circumstances, execution of warrant beyond the period stipulated was held to be not legal.
3. The learned Government Pleader for Home appeared for respondents Nos.1 and 2.
4. Issue notice to the 3rd respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to the 3rd respondent through 4 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof thereof.
6. Post on 19.04.2023.
7. Till then, status quo shall be maintained. It is made clear that this order does not come in the way of taking steps as per law".
b. On 13.04.2023, the petitioner gave the respondent No.2 a copy of the order, dated 10.04.2023, downloaded from the official website of this Court, but, the respondent No.2 refused to give acknowledgment stating that he would accept only a certified copy of the order sent by the Court. The certified copy of the order was made ready on 17.04.2023 and it was received by the counsel for the petitioner. c. In compliance of the order, the petitioner sent a notice through registered post with acknowledgment due under postal receipt No.RN 425024506IN booked on 17.04.2023 addressed to the Advocate Commissioner, respondent No.2 herein / respondent No.3 in the writ petition. As per the postal track consignment record, the postal item was delivered to the addressee / respondent No.2 herein on 19.04.2023.
d. The petitioner has been carrying on personal office in the first floor consisting of four (4) portions having three (3) shutters in the above said property. On 19.04.2023, the petitioner was away from the said property to attend his personal work. The parents of the petitioner are residing in the second floor of this property. They were also away from the property on that day.Thus, the property was under lock. Mr.Srinivas, a tenant in the first floor has been carrying on his stock market business keeping his computers and office files etc., with his staff.
5BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 e. On 19.04.2023, Mr.Rizwan, claiming to be the Branch Manager of the Governorpet branch of the Union Bank of India accompanied by the respondent No.2 herein and about 20 others, at about 10.45 A.M. came to the subject property. The respondent No.2 instructed one of his accomplices to break open the locks of the shutter in the first floor and four shutters in the ground floor. They illegally trespassed into the first and second floors of the building. The staff of the tenant, by phone, intimated the petitioner about the illegal breaking open of the locks by them. The staff of the tenant took photographs of the illegal entry. The petitioner contacted the police through emergency No.100 requesting to do justice. The police promptly reacted. The respondent No.1 sent a Constable to the property. The Constable enquired the respondent No.2. Then, the respondent No.2 stated that he had warrant issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023 and was entitled to execute the same. The respondent No.2 brought a videographer who videographed the incident as per the instructions of the respondent No.2. By the time the petitioner reached the property at about 3.40 P.M., the respondent No.2 deliberately and wilfully and in disobedience to the order of this Court, dated 10.04.2023, flouted and violated the order by breaking open the locks and taking physical possession of the property.
f. The warrant issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is valid till 30.03.2023. The advocate commissioner shall file report on the execution of the warrant by 30.03.2023. Whereas, the respondent No.2 executed the warrant on 19.04.2023 after the expiry of the valid period, violating the order of this Court, dated 10.04.2023. After entering into the premises, the respondent No.2, accompanied by Mr.Rizwan and others, closed the doors of the subject premises and 6 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 held a search inside the premises and went away locking the premises with their own locks. No panchanama was conducted in the presence of the respondent No.1 / police while using the physical force which is a state right. The petitioner lodged a complaint on 19.04.2023 with the respondent No.1 under an acknowledgment with complaint No.GOVPET202304191311, dated 19.04.2023. The household articles, jewellery, silver articles, valuable documents kept inside the house are in the locked premises. The petitioner is afraid whether they are available and intact or not. These movable properties were not assets secured with the bank. The respondent No.2, while taking possession of the immovable property, did not follow the prescribed procedure under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable to be punished.
6. Along with the petition, the petitioner filed photographs showing the presence of persons, a photographer and breaking open a shutter and the text in red paint handwriting with the same text on the door and wall stating as follows:
"Physical possession of this property belonging to Mr.Koppuravuri Nataraja Rao, S/o. Sobhanachalam (Late) is taken over by the Advocate Commissioner as per the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.642/2023 in F.No.11404/2022 by Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 19-04-2023 and handed over the same to the Authorized Officer, Asset Recovery Branch, Union Bank of India, Vijayawada. Trespassers will be prosecuted.
Place: Vijayawada Date : 19-04-2023"
7BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023
7. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 19.06.2023 reiterating the previous averments and further averring briefly stated as follows:
a. In view of deliberate flouting of order of this Court by the respondent No.2, the petitioner filed this contempt case. On coming to know the same, for the reasons best known to the respondent No.2, he once again resorted to violation of order of this Court by coming to the subject property on 12.05.2023 and once again took away certain items from the subject property without consent and knowledge of the petitioner. This fact is evident from the red colour painted hand writing on the wall of the subject property as follows:
"Advocate Commissioner today, i.e., 12/05/2023 took physical possession of the remaining building and handed over the keys along with earlier keys locked on:19-04-2023 to the Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, Vijayawada Place : Vijayawada Date : 12-05-2023"
8. Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner filed two (2) photographs showing the text in red colour painted handwriting on the wall dated 19.04.2023 which was already filed with the petition and on the door dated 12.05.2023.
9. On 17.08.2023, the respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit, firstly tendering unconditional apology to the Court for any inconvenience caused due to his acts, with further averments briefly stated as follows:
8BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 This respondent never interfered with the building / residence of the petitioner at any point of time. On 19.04.2023, on receipt of phone call of the petitioner received by the police control room (Dial 112), HC- 1997 and PC-1453 of Governorpet P.S. went to the subject property. The bank authorities and others were present there. The police advised them not to create any law and order problem and reported to the S.H.O. on return to the police station. On the same day, the petitioner submitted a report to this respondent complaining that Sri Rizwan, Bank Manager, his staff and some other advocates had come to his residence without order of a Court for breaking open the lock and broke open the lock of the residence and shop or without any prior notice or intimation. It is further complained that there were gold ornaments and other valuables in the house. Since the dispute is purely civil in nature and the matter is pending before Court, basing on the complaint, this respondent made necessary entries in the general diary (G.D.) and advised the petitioner to settle the matter through Court. The advocate commissioner did not make any request for providing police aid for execution of the warrant. It is only after receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, this respondent came to know about the issue. This respondent requested to close the contempt case.
10. The respondent No.2 filed a counter on 20.09.2023, firstly tendering unconditional apology to the Court for any inconvenience caused due to his acts, with further averments briefly stated as follows:
a. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate appointed this respondent as a Commissioner under warrant issued on 06.03.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023 in C.F.No.11404 of 2022 for service of notice to Swastik Enterprises, P.Durga Deepthi and Koppuravuri Nataraja Rao with police aid and to break open the property in the event of refusal of the notice.9
BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 Accordingly, this respondent issued notice to the bank authorities and the S.H.O. of Governorpet P.S., Vijayawada on 15.03.2023. On 17.03.2023, when this respondent tried to serve notice on the respondents in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023, they refused to take notice.
This respondent served notices to the parties therein. On 18.03.2023, when this respondent visited the subject property, to his shock and dismay, there was a seal affixed to the lock of the subject property. So, he affixed notice of break open with police aid. Subsequently, he filed a report before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.03.2023 informing the same and sought final order as to whether to execute the warrant or return it to Court. As the Court directed to proceed, he went ahead.
b. This respondent executed the warrant on 19.04.2023 by early hours itself. Later, in the afternoon hours, this respondent received the copy of the order of the High Court personally through the petitioner. By that time, the warrant had already been executed. This respondent received summons / order by post on 21.04.2023 vide consignment No.RN416685295IN. Just prior to the arrival of the petitioner, a police head constable HC-1997 and police constable PC-1453 of Governorpet P.S., Vijayawada, came to the subject property. The bank authorities and others were present at the subject property. The police advised them not to create any law and order problem and to report to the police at the station. The police went back and reported to the S.H.O. c. On 19.04.2023, the petitioner submitted a report to the respondent No.1. After making an entry of the complaint in the G.D., the police directed the petitioner to settle the matter through Court stating that the issue is completely civil in nature and the matter is pending before Court. This respondent executed the warrant on 19.04.2023 as per law and has not committed any violation of order of this Court. This 10 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 respondent has great respect to Court and its order and prayed to dismiss the petition.
11. On 11.10.2023 and 20.10.2023, Ms. Tulasi Divya, appointed as commissioner by this Court on 21.09.2023 to make inventory of the movables in the subject house property, filed two separate memos before this Court with the same contents about non-execution of the warrant due to absence of the respondent No.3 in spite of service of prior notices to the respondents, though the petitioner, the petitioner's counsel and the other respondent were present and further stating that photos had been taken at the time of visiting the said property.
12. On 01.07.2024, the respondent No.3 filed a memo along with a photostat copy of the warrant dated 24.02.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023, and a copy of proceedings on docket in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023 from dates 28.02.2023 to 03.04.2024 (with a neat copy).
13. On 19.09.2024, the respondent No.3 filed a counter along with material papers and a petition in I.A.No.03 of 2024 to recall the order, dated 21.09.2023, in I.A.No.03 of 2023 by which this respondent was ordered to be impleaded. The averments briefly stated are as follows:
a. The petitioner, knowing fully well that this respondent had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "SARFAESI Act") against the secured asset mortgaged by his father, intentionally filed writ petition in W.P.No.8581 of 2023 without impleading the bank as a party and obtained ex parte order on 10.04.2023. Mr.Rizwan was the Chief Manager and authorized officer of this respondent. He died on 31.07.2023. In terms of the warrant of commission issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, 11 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 the Commissioner executed the warrant on 19.04.2023 and took physical possession of part of the property and handed over the same to the authorized officer of the bank. The allegations made against the authorized officer are false. It is false that this respondent deliberately flouted the order of this Court. In fact, there is no order against this respondent as the bank is not a party to the writ petition and consequently, the alleged violation does not arise. In the forenoon of 19.04.2023, the Commissioner executed the warrant as per the direction of Court.
b. The petitioner challenged the warrant, dated 28.02.2023, issued by C.M.M., Vijayawada. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the warrant.
c. In the warrant of commission, dated 28.02.2023, there was no time limit specified to return the warrant. It is only stated that the Commissioner shall take physical possession from the respondent therein or tenants by duly evicting them and hand over possession thereof to the authorized officer of the bank.
d. It is false that the jewellery, valuables, documents etc., were kept inside the subject property. The Commissioner prepared an inventory while taking possession of the secured asset. No cash, gold jewellery or other original documents were found in the subject property.
e. On 25.10.2023, when the bank officials visited the secured asset for inspection, they found that the locks of the front door and basement were broken and the details about the ongoing litigation over the property were affixed on the front wall of the premises and a banner 12 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 was hanging from the corridor of the first floor. The respondent bank lodged a complaint, on the same day, with the S.H.O., Governorpet P.S., Vijayawada, who registered a case in Cr.No.321 of 2023 under Section 453 I.P.C. The case is pending. No illegality or irregularity was committed by this respondent while taking possession of the property through the Commissioner.
f. As per section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Reserve Bank or the Central Registry or any secured creditor or any of its officers for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under that Act.
g. After the account of the borrower became non-performing asset (N.P.A.), the petitioner, being the son of the mortgager, collusively filed a suit in O.S.No.53 of 2021 before the Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, alleging that the subject property is the joint family property.
h. The father of the petitioner filed W.P.No.6878 of 2023 before this Court challenging the order, dated 28.02.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023 by the C.M.M., Vijayawada, and the writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 21.03.2023.
i. Thereafter, the petitioner cleverly filed W.P.No.8581 of 2023 without making the bank as a party and suppressing the truth and obtained the interim order and further filed this contempt petition. The petitioner is not even an "aggrieved person" and is not entitled to challenge the measures taken by the bank under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act.
j. That apart, the petitioner filed a securitization application vide S.A.No.84 of 2022 before the D.R.T., Visakhapatnam, challenging the proceedings initiated by the bank. It was dismissed on 04.03.2022.
13BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 Subsequently, he filed another similar petition vide S.A.No.169 of 2023. It was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 06.05.2023.
k. He also filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.6944 of 2022 before this Court and initially obtained interim order of stay subject to payment of Rs.50,00,000/-. Without complying the same, he filed writ petition No.8581 of 2023. W.P.No.6944 of 2022 was closed by the order dated 13.04.2022.
l. On receipt of notice in I.A.No.03 of 2023 in W.P.No.8581 of 2023, this respondent appeared before this Court through an advocate by filing vakalat in the registry on 13.09.2023. When the case was listed on 21.09.2023, the name of the counsel was not shown in the daily cause list. Therefore, the counsel had no knowledge of the listing of the case and could not appear. As there was no appearance, the petition was allowed to implead this respondent to the contempt petition. This respondent is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the contempt petition as there is no order against this respondent in the writ petition in W.P. No.8581 of 2023.
m. The contempt petition was filed with a malafide intention to obtain unlawful gain by grossly abusing the process of law. There is no merit in the petition and it deserves no consideration.
14. In response to the counter affidavit of the respondent No.3, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit on 18.12.2024 with the averments, briefly stated, as follows:
The counter affidavit of the respondent No.3 does not disclose any valid ground against the contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondent No.3 wantonly failed to answer the core issue in the contempt case i.e., flouting the order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in 14 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 W.P.No.8581 of 2023 by executing the warrant issued by the C.M.M., Vijayawada, specifically fixing the date 30.03.2023 for execution of the warrant and filing a report before the same Court. Admittedly, the warrant was executed on 19.04.2023 beyond the time fixed by the C.M.M., in as much as the sentence "for filing of advocate commissioner's report" impliedly indicates that the commissioner shall execute the warrant on or before 30.03.2023 and submit the report even in the event of failure to execute the warrant on or before the specified date. The docket order, dated 14.06.2023, relied by the respondent No.3 in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023 indicates "report filed", but no such report was filed along with the counter of the respondent No.3 or the respondent No.2. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.3 is untenable. There is unnecessary narration of facts by the respondent No.3 in the counter and they are self contradictory since it is mentioned that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person but again stated that there is an effective and alternative remedy to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is a necessary party to the contempt case as the entire exercise of taking physical possession of the property is at its behest. Though movable properties have not been mortgaged or hypothecated with the bank / respondent No.3, it highhandedly took physical possession of the movables without conducting panchanama behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, order impleading the respondent No.3 need not be recalled and that the counter of the respondent is liable to be rejected.
15. Relying on the judgment of this Court in M/s. Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited & Another Vs. The State Bank of India 15 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 represented by its Authorized Officer, Hyderabad1 rendered by the Division Bench consisting of me, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the time stipulated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is mandatory and therefore, without extending the time for execution of the warrant, the commissioner has no authority to execute the warrant after 30.03.2023 and therefore, execution of the warrant without authority, that too, while the order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.No.8581 of 2023 is in force amounts to contempt.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, argued that as per Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the respondent No.2 has immunity from this action as no act of C.M.M. / D.M. / any officer authorised by the C.M.M. / D.M. done in pursuance of that section shall be called in question in any Court or before any authority.
17. He, while reiterating that the warrant was executed before receipt of the order of this Court, further argued that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extended the date of execution of the warrant of delivery from time to time, i.e., from 30.03.2023 to 30.05.2023 as 30.03.2023 was a public holiday; from 30.05.2023 to 14.06.2023 as the P.O. was on vacation; and thereafter from 14.06.2023 to 21.07.2023 recording the order of the High Court in W.P.No.8581 of 2023; thereafter also it was adjourned till 03.04.2024 for filing report of the commissioner; and on 03.04.2024, the learned C.M.M. adjourned the matter to 30.05.2024 extending time for filing report of the advocate commissioner. Meanwhile, on 19.04.2023 itself, the warrant was executed by the advocate commissioner. Therefore, he contended that 1 W.P.No.30161 of 2021, dated 18.02.2022 16 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 there is no violation of the order of this Court which permitted the respondents to take steps as per law.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that the petitioner's father by name Koppuravuri Nataraja Rao earlier filed W.P.No.6878 of 2023 against Union Bank of India challenging execution of the warrant in pursuance of the order, dated 28.02.2023, in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023 beyond the time stipulated in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 but the writ petition was dismissed on 21.03.2023 by following the decision of the Supreme Court in C.Bright Vs. District Collector and others 2 and therefore, the petitioner cannot again contend the same, even by placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court which was rendered in respect of another matter. He further submitted that there is another line of distinction for application of the decision of the Division Bench to the present case because the warrant under consideration before the Division Bench has a direction for return of the warrant by a stipulated date whereas the warrant in the present case does not contain any such date for returning the warrant. He further submitted that the Division Bench in W.P.No.30161 of 2021 held with regard to question No.(b) about the mandatory or directory nature of the time stipulated in Section 14 by following the decision of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in C.Bright (2 supra), which is consequently followed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6878 of 2023 in which the point urged by the petitioner is squarely covered and rejected. In W.P.No.6878 of 2023, the petitioner has not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge about the decision of the Division Bench which now he relied on.
22020 Supreme (SC) 651 17 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023
19. The main crux of the dispute is whether the respondent No.2 executed the warrant of delivery of the property in violation of the order of this Court. According to the petitioner, the warrant in Crl.M.P. No. 642 of 2023 was executed inspite of service of a certified copy of the order, dated 10.04.2023, in W.P. No. 8581 of 2023 on the commissioner / respondent No.2 before the warrant was executed. Whereas, the respondent No.2 contended that the warrant was executed before receipt of the copy of the order. It was further contended that even if the warrant was executed after receipt of the copy of the order in the writ petition, it is not contempt as the order permitted the respondents to take steps as per law and the warrant was executed within the time extended by the C.M.M.
20. Before entering into the above controversy, it is pertinent to examine the order passed by this Court on 10.04.2023. The status quo of the property was directed to be maintained while making it clear that the interim order does not come in the way of taking steps as per law. Execution of warrant issued by a competent Court is undisputedly in obedience of process of law, but, the same cannot be executed, if its execution is prevented by any order of Court competent to so order. What is ordered by this Court to maintain status quo is subject to further observation that the respondents can take steps as per law.
21. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 reads as follows:
"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 18 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 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 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) to (ix) ....
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, 19 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 pass the order within such further period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days.
Provided also that ....
(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 Sub-section (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."
22. As per Section 14(1) noted above, on receipt of request from a secured creditor for taking possession or control of any secured asset, the jurisdictional C.M.M. / D.M. shall take possession of the asset and documents relating thereto and forward them to the secured creditor, provided the applicant satisfies the other conditions mentioned in the section. Further, on receipt of the affidavit from the authorised officer, the C.M.M. / D.M., on being satisfied with the affidavit, shall pass suitable order to take possession of the secured asset within a period of 20 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 thirty days from the date of application of the secured creditor. If no such order is passed within the said period for reasons beyond his control, after recording reasons in writing, he may pass order within such further period, but not exceeding sixty days in aggregate. As per Section 14(2), the C.M.M. / D.M. may take or cause to be taken steps required under Section 14(1) as are necessary. This provision enables appointment of a commissioner to do the actions under Section 14(1). Thus, the respondent No. 2 was appointed to take possession of the secured asset in the present case. The time periods mentioned in Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are mandatory or directory has been dealt with in the cases cited in the arguments.
23. In M/s.Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited, (supra), basing on the rival contentions, the following questions were framed for consideration:-
(a) Whether the instant writ petition ought to be entertained?
(b) Whether the time-limit under Section 14 of the Act of 30 days to pass an order, extendable in aggregate to 60 days, is mandatory or directory?
(c) Whether, once the time specified in the warrant had elapsed, could possession of the property in question still be taken over, under the same warrant?
24. After an elaborate discussion, Question No.(b) was answered in paragraphs Nos.20 and 21 as follows:
"20. In terms of C.Bright (supra), question (b) is answered holding that the time limit stipulated in Section 14 of the Act is directory and not mandatory. The conclusion of the Hon'ble 3 Judge Bench in C.Bright 21 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 (supra) would cover Chief Metropolitan Magistrates as well.
21. As such, the petitioners' contention that the CMM ought not to have passed the order dated 28.12.2020 on SBI's application filed on 27.02.2019 under Section 14 of the Act is negatived. In this view, the CMM's order dated 28.12.2020 does not suffer from any illegality, and cannot be faulted with."
25. In the case before the Division Bench, the learned Magistrate, while directing execution of the warrant, further directed that the warrant is returnable with report by 15.02.2021 and thereafter, on 17.12.2021, the commissioner took possession of the property. The learned counsel for S.B.I. argued that there is requirement for the Magistrate to fix time limit for taking possession of the secured asset in exercise of power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by placing reliance on the decision of a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar3. Then, the Division Bench held at paragraphs Nos.26 to 29 as follows:
"26. In the suit filed by the respondent no. 3 against the respondents no. 1 and 2, the order of status quo passed by the ADJ itself states as under:
"parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the possession of the suit property".
27. It is clear from a reading of the aforesaid order that the said status quo would only operate between the parties to the suit. In other words, this would not operate 3 2021 SCC OnLine Delhi 5209 22 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 vis-à-vis the petitioner, who was admittedly not a party in the said suit.
28. The CMM, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARAFESI Act could not have taken cognizance of the aforesaid order passed in the civil suit. The scope of the proceedings before the CMM are entirely different from the proceedings in the civil suit. The scope of the proceedings before the CMM are under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, which is a specialized law enacted to enable a secured creditor to obtain possession of the secured asset in an expeditious manner. Scope of the proceedings in the civil suit are entirely different as they are in the context of inter se disputes between the respondent no. 1 and 2 on one hand and the respondent no. 3 on the other hand. Even though the ADJ who has passed the order dated 12th July, 2021 in the suit between the respondent no. 1 and 2 and the respondent no. 3 is higher in judicial hierarchy than the CMM, in view of the position explained above, the CMM could not have declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in the CMM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, by taking into account the order dated 12th July, 2021 passed by the ADJ.
29. In any event, in view of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, a civil court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of a secured creditor or the enforcement of such rights by the secured creditor. Such rights can only be challenged by the borrower or any affected person before the DRT in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI 23 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 Act. Further, in terms of Section 34, no injunction can be granted by any court in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power under the SARFAESI Act.
Therefore, the civil court, in the present case, did not have any jurisdiction to pass an injunction against the petitioner."
26. The Division Bench of this High Court, in the above case, referred the decision in a subsequent case before the Delhi High Court in Sansar Chand Sharma Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., through Chief Manager Sh.G.S.Pander 4 [in which the earlier decisions in (i) Housing Finance Corporation Limited (supra) and (ii) Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Vs. Trans Asian Industries Exposition Private Limited 5 , were referred], wherein it was opined that '....No provisions of law have been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner in terms of which the C.M.M. could not extend the time period granted for taking physical possession of the property....'.
27. The Division Bench of this Court held at paragraphs Nos.31 to 35 as follows:
"31. An essential component of judicial orders is certainty. If a CMM imposes a time-limit for taking over possession, such stipulated time has to be mandatorily adhered to. If the same is not done, be it for whatever reason, the appropriate course of action is to re- approach the CMM concerned for extension of time. We 4 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4911 5 MANU/DE/0491/2021 24 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 are of the clear view that a reasonable time limit should be imposed by the CMMs, in their wisdom and discretion. Although in the context of recovery of excise duties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Government of India v Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras, [(1989) 3 SCC 483], had held that 'In the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period, would depend upon the facts of each case... No hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as the determination of the question will depend upon the facts of each case.
32. In judging what is to be a reasonable period for reopening an order of assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, in State of Punjab v Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., [(2007) 11 SCC 363], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 'It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.
33. The same principle would hold the field. We would, thus, hold and direct that the CMMs shall, when passing orders under Section 14 of the Act, mandate a reasonable time-limit for taking over possession of the secured asset in question. This, to our mind, appropriately secures the interests of all concerned 25 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 parties. Needless to state, it will be open to the bank or financial institution to approach the CMM for extension of time, if need be.
34. In the present case, the learned CMM, in fact, adopted the correct approach in law by fixing a date by which the warrant was to be executed. Further, the time- limit is in the interest of the secured creditor, as the Advocate Commissioner would also be bound to act within the stipulated time-frame. As already observed, the CMM can be re-approached for extension of time, if required.
35. Therefore, Question (c) is answered thus - once the time specified in the warrant has elapsed, possession of the property in question cannot be taken over, under the same warrant."
28. In the writ petition filed by the father of the petitioner in Koppuravuri Nataraja Rao Vs. Union Bank of India 6 , another Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"Heard Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt V.Dyumani, learned standing counsel for the respondent-bank. With the consent of both the learned counsels, this writ petition is taken up for hearing.
2. The grievance in this petition is with regard to theorder dated 28.02.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 6 W.P.No.6878 of 2023, dated 21.03.2023 26 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 since thesaid application was filed on 20.12.2022, the order shouldhave been passed within the original 30 days that is on 19.01.2023 or latest by the extended period of 30 daysnamely by 20.01.2023. He relies upon the provision underSection 14 of the SARFAESI Act in support of these. Byarguing that this provision is mandatory, the learned counselsubmits that the order passed on 28.02.2023 is invalid in lawas it is beyond the stipulated period.
3. In reply to this, Smt V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the bank argues that the provisions ofSection 14 of the SARFAESI Act are directory and notmandatory. She relies upon the judgment of three (03) judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Bright Vs. The District Collector and Ors, [AIR 2020 SC 5747] wherein it was heldthat the said provisions are directory and not mandatory. Shepoints out that, the High Court in that case had clearly held that the time limits stipulated under the amended section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are directory and not mandatory. Thiswas challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court whichultimately held that the High Court did not commit any errorin passing the impugned order and the appeal was dismissed.She also relies upon Paragraph 20 to show that merelybecause the order is passed beyond the stipulated period,Magistrate does not become functus officio.
4. This Court agrees with what is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent particularly as the submissions are based on a judgment of the 27 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was directly dealing with thepoints that is an issue in this case.
5. In view of the said law, this Court finds no merits in the writ petition. Therefore, the same is dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shall stand closed."
29. In the case of Mangalagiri Textiles (supra), it was held that the time limit stipulated in Section 14 was held not mandatory. In the case filed by the father of the petitioner relating to the very same subject matter property, in respect of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the contention that the time limit prescribed in Section 14 was rejected. A combined reading of the decisions of the Division Bench as well as the Single Bench makes it clear that execution of the warrant by the commissioner / the respondent No.2 herein on 19.04.2023 after the C.M.M. extended the period to file report from time to time cannot be said to be illegal, particularly as no time was stipulated in the warrant for its return unlike in the case of Mangalagiri Textiles (supra). Taking advantage of the observation made with regard to point (c) in that case, as the time was stipulated in the warrant therein, the petitioner vehemently contended that execution of warrant after 30.03.2023 was illegal.
30. Since the order of this Court in W.P.No.8581 of 2023 is, as already indicated above, subject to the procedure being followed as per law, the action of the respondent No.2 in executing the warrant on 19.04.2023 is within the scope of the order and is not beyond or in violation of the said order.
28BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023
31. Moreover, it is not established by the petitioner that the respondent No.2 received the copy of the order in W.P.No.8581 of 2023 in the forenoon of that day before execution of the warrant, though the respondent No.2 categorically stated that it was received in the afternoon on 19.04.2023 by which time the warrant was executed in the forenoon of that day. The photographs of the text in red paint indicate that the warrant was executed on 19.04.2023. They do not help the petitioner to prove time at which the warrant was executed on that day. Since the action for contempt are in the nature of criminal proceedings, it is the initial burden of the petitioner to establish the disputed fact and the respondent cannot be burdened to establish his case before the petitioner proves the case alleged by the petitioner on the disputed aspect. Therefore, for all these reasons also, the alleged violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.8581 of 2023 was not established. Therefore, this Court does not see any merit in the contempt case.
32. Protection given under Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act can be applied to challenge made to validity of the action. It cannot take away contempt jurisdiction of this Court as the validity of action is only incidental to the main question of contempt and not the main question itself.
33. Before parting, it is to be noted that the petitioner filed several interlocutory applications seeking various reliefs shown below:
Sl.No. Petition Prayer 1 I.A.No.1 of 2023 To appoint an advocate commissioner for taking inventory of the movables in the 'subject property' viz., Commercial / residential building bearing Door No.27- 1/5-7, Municipal Ward No.23, Block No.5, Kruthiventivari Lane, Governorpet, 29 BSB, J C.C.No.2885 of 2023 Vijayawada, Krishna district, in the presence of respondent No.1 Police, pending disposal of the main contempt case.
2 I.A.No.1 of 2024 To direct the advocate commissioner to undertake the 'inventory' of the 'Iron Almarah' 'cupboards' and 'Shelves available in the Ground, First Floor and Second Floor of the 'subject premises in the presence of the bank and police officials as well as the petitioner herein, so as to complete the task of execution of the warrant in toto.' 3 I.A.No.2 of 2023 To direct the respondent No.2 herein to deliver back the physical possession of the 'subject property' forthwith to the petitioner 4 I.A.No.2 of 2024 To direct the respondent No.3 / bank to redeliver back the second floor of the 'subject premises' to the petitioner in the presence of the learned advocate commissioner already appointed by this Court 5 I.A.No.3 of 2024 To recall the orders, dated 21.09.2023, passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in C.C.No.2885 of 2023 The prayers sought in the above applications are unsustainable in a case for contempt. Accordingly, all these applications are closed.
34. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.30.01.2026 RAR