logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 254 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2623 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Parties : M/s. Airavat Industries & Another Versus Bank of Maharashtra & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: ------ For the Respondents: -------
Date of Judgment : 13-02-2026
Head Note :-
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
- SLP (C) No.2342 of 2026

2. Catch Words:
- Special Leave Petition
- Writ Petition
- Ministerial function
- Abuse of process

3. Summary:
The Court notes that the petitioners’ counsel declined to argue the present Special Leave Petition (SLP) after earlier dismissals of a writ petition and an SLP. The Court references its earlier order in SLP (C) No.2342 of 2026, where it held that a challenge to a Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was not maintainable because the magistrate’s function is ministerial, not adjudicatory. The present petition raises the same ground of non‑hearing before the magistrate. The Court observes that the petitioners are abusing the process by repeatedly approaching this Court despite being directed to the appropriate forum. Consequently, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Any pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Mr. Mathews J Nedumpara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, refuses to argue the special leave petition having suffered orders of dismissal of a writ petition and a special leave petition, minutes before.

2. Even otherwise, without any assistance from the learned counsel, we can decide this petition.

3. We find a previous order dated 30th January, 2026[SLP (C) No.2342 of 2026] having been made by us between the same parties, where we have held a special leave petition directly challenging the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002[Act] to be not maintainable, for the reasons assigned. Here too, an order passed by the said Magistrate is under challenge on the ground that the petitioners have not been heard by him.

4. Law laid down by this Court is clear that the function performed by a District Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act is ministerial in nature and no adjudicatory function is involved. The decisions of this Court, relied upon in the earlier order of dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition dated 30th January, 2026, may be referred to in this connection.

5. Despite the previous order having granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for remedy, the process of this Court has been abused by them by approaching this Court once again. There is no merit in this special leave petition which, accordingly, stands dismissed.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal