Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar

JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. The seminal question involved in these cases is: whether it is open to the District Magistrate¹ or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate² to appoint an advocate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor within the meaning of Section 14(1A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002³?

2. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay⁴ vide judgment and order dated 6.11.2019 in Writ Petition (L) No. 28480 of 2019 opined that the advocate, not being a subordinate officer to the CMM or DM, such appointment would be illegal. Against this decision, four separate appeals⁵ have been filed by the concerned parties. On the other hand, the High Court of Judicature at Madras⁶ vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2020 in C.R.P. No. 790 of 2020 has taken a contrary view while following earlier decision of the same High Court on the reasoning that the advocate is regarded as an officer of the court and, thus, subordinate to the CMM or the DM. Having so held, it allowed the civil revision petition filed by the secured creditor (Canara Bank). Against this decision, a special leave petition⁷ has been filed by the borrowers.

3. The High Courts of Kerala (in Muhammed Ashraf and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.   MANU/KE/0456/2008 : AIR 2009 Kerala 14; The Federal Bank Ltd., Ernakulam v. A.V. Punnus   MANU/KE/1086/2013 : AIR 2014 Kerala 7; and V.S. Sunitha v. Federal Bank Ltd.), Madras (in S. Chandramohan and Anr. v. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and Ors.   MANU/TN/2503/2014 : 2014-5-L.W. 620) and Delhi (in Rahul Chaudhary v. Andhra Bank and Ors.), have taken the same view as in the case of Canara Bank impugned in the special leave petition⁸ arising from........