Supreme Court - Daily Orders
P.M. Kelukutty vs Young Mens Christian Association . on 7 December, 2017
Bench: R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.8 SECTION XI -A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4665/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-02-2016
in WA No. 135/2016 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)
P.M. KELUKUTTY & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION & ORS. Respondent(s)
(and IA No.127273/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)
WITH
SLP(C) Nos. 5109/2016 and 5141/2016
Date : 07-12-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhi Vasudevan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. V.Balaji,Adv.
Mr. Atul Sharma,Adv.
Mr. R.Mohan,Adv.
Mr. MSM Asaithambi,Adv.
Mr. C.Kannan,Adv.
Ms. Sripradha Krishnan,Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Sriram P.,Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Sankar M.S.,Adv.
Ms. Athira G.Nair,Adv.
Mr. Anshuman Ashok, AOR
Mr. Jaideep Gupta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash, AOR
Mr. Jishnu M.L.,Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Prakash,Adv.
Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv.
Mr. Vijay Shankar V.L.,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Signature Not Verified
Mr. V.Giri,Sr.Adv.
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2017.12.08
Mr. S.Easwaran,Adv.
17:24:14 IST
Reason: Mr. Sajith. P, AOR
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR
1
Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh,Adv.
Mr. Anant Gautam,Adv.
Mr. Aakash Sehrawal,Adv.
Mr. V.Govinda Ramanan,Adv.
For M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR
Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
One of the question which arises for consideration in these special leave petitions is as to the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to exercise powers under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as Section 14 of the Act mentions only two officers who can exercise the powers, namely, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate. There are conflicting judgments of the various High Courts. Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts have taken a view that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has no power to entertain the applications filed under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act whereas Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad High Courts have taken a view that the Chief Judicial Magistrate can exercise the powers.
During the course of hearing, we find that against the judgment dated 27th August, 2013 of the High Court of Madras, this Court vide order dated 18th August, 2015 in Civil Appeal No.6295 of 2015 (arising out of SLP(Civil)No.3311 of 2015) has granted leave. 2 It will be appropriate and in the interest of justice that these matters be tagged with Civil Appeal No.6295 of 2015 and heard together.
We may mention here that the question of competency of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to entertain the application filed under Section 14 of the Act was neither raised before the High Court nor taken in the special leave petitions but as it goes to the root of the matter being purely a question of law and jurisdiction to exercise the powers by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, we have permitted the learned counsel appearing for the parties to address the Court on this issue also. More so when the issue is sub-judice in appeal before this Court. These petitions shall not be treated as part-heard.
Tag with Civil Appeal No.6295 of 2015.
Let the papers be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for passing appropriate orders.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (CHANDER BALA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
3