In Brief
This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether a District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can appoint an advocate as commissioner to take possession of secured assets under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act, 2002. The Bombay High Court had held this appointment illegal, but the Kerala, Madras, and Delhi High Courts allowed it. The Supreme Court agreed with the three High Courts. It held that advocates, as officers of the court, are 'functionally subordinate' to the magistrate. The word 'may' in the statute gives discretion to either authorize such officers or take possession personally. The Court applied functional subordination principles rather than strict statutory subordination, finding that this interpretation furthers the legislative intent to empower financial institutions in debt recovery. The judgment upholds the practice followed by most courts nationwide.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.