In Brief
This appeal challenges a High Court decision on the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The issue was whether the requirement for a District Magistrate to deliver possession of a secured asset within 30 days (extendable to 60 days) is legally mandatory or merely directory. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding the time-limit is directory, not mandatory. While intended to encourage prompt action by magistrates, failure to meet the deadline does not void proceedings or eliminate the magistrate's jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that since the borrower has no control over the magistrate's actions, and non-compliance doesn't prejudice the borrower, the provision must be interpreted as directory to advance the Act's purpose of expedited debt recovery.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.