Understanding Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS: A Complete 2025 Guide to Maintenance Law in India
December 1, 2025
Divorce Lawyer in Gaur City 1 Noida – Advocate AK Tiwari
December 1, 2025
SARFAESI Possession Proceedings Before Delhi CJM/CMM Courts
The SARFAESI Act, 2002 empowers banks and financial institutions to enforce security interest without lengthy civil litigation. While symbolic possession and recovery measures under Section 13 are taken directly by banks, physical possession often requires the assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) or Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) under Section 14 of the Act. The document explains how SARFAESI matters operate before Delhi courts including Dwarka, Rohini, Saket, Tis Hazari, and others.
The process begins after the borrower defaults and the loan account is classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). A 60-day demand notice is issued under Section 13(2). If no repayment occurs, banks proceed to take symbolic possession under Section 13(4). When the borrower or occupants do not surrender the property, the bank files an application under Section 14 before the CMM/CJM seeking help to take physical possession.
The CMM/CJM does not decide disputes about ownership, title, or the validity of the bank’s actions. Their role is strictly ministerial. The magistrate only verifies that the bank has followed due procedure: proper notice under Section 13(2), symbolic possession under Section 13(4), and compliance with Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Upon satisfaction, the CMM appoints a responsible officer — often the SHO, Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar, or an Advocate Commissioner — to take physical possession and hand it over to the bank.
Common SARFAESI disputes before Delhi CMM courts include bank applications for possession, objections by tenants or borrowers, requests for police assistance, auction purchaser possession applications, and compliance monitoring. Borrowers may file objections claiming improper notice, pending DRT proceedings, tenancy rights, or procedural lapses. However, challenges to the validity of bank action, NPA classification, or title disputes are not maintainable before the CMM; these must go to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17.
The affidavit required under Section 14(1) is crucial. It must affirm nine mandatory points including the loan amount, NPA status, issuance of 13(2) notice, borrower objections, symbolic possession, and proof of compliance. Banks must attach the mortgage deed, notices, publication proof, possession notices, and power of attorney documents. Missing details can lead to rejection or return of the application.
The document provides practical drafting formats including the Bank’s Section 14 application, affidavit, memo of parties, Vakalatnama, and a standard draft possession order. It also includes the borrower’s complete objection set, highlighting grounds such as failure to consider 13(3A) objections, pending DRT litigation, part payments, tenancy claims, and improper publication of possession notices.
Key judicial principles discussed include: (1) magistrate’s role is administrative, not adjudicatory; (2) the 30–60 day disposal timeline is directory; (3) no notice to the borrower is required at Section 14 stage; (4) an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed; (5) orders cannot be reviewed once passed; (6) agricultural land is exempt under Section 31(i). These principles have been reinforced in cases such as Visalakshi, Phoenix ARC, C. Bright, and NKGSB Bank.
A hypothetical illustration shows how after default and symbolic possession, the bank approaches the CMM with the affidavit. The CMM verifies compliance, passes a possession order, and the commissioner executes it with police assistance. The borrower’s remedy is solely before the DRT, not the magistrate. This reflects SARFAESI’s purpose: enabling quick, non-litigious enforcement of secured assets for effective recovery.
