Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1540 - MADRAS HIGH COURTTime limit - date of filing of the respective application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act - outer limit of 60 days comprising an initial period of 30 days and an extended period of a further 30 days was stipulated by an amendment effected through Act 44 of 2016 which came into force on 01.09.2016 - whether the said time limit is mandatory and, if so, whether the District Collector/District Collector is divested of jurisdiction to decide the application on expiry of 60 days? - HELD THAT:- From Section 14, as amended by Act 44 of 2016, it is clear that the amendment relating to the imposition of time limits uses words such as "shall" and "not exceeding 60 days". Therefore, it is self-evident that the time limit is unambiguous. In light of such unambiguous language, which is both peremptory in form and couched in negative language, the question that arises is whether the Court should, as contended by the learned senior counsel, Mr. Ajmal Khan, treat the time limit as mandatory and not examine the object and purpose of the provision and other factors such as the consequence of non-compliance - therefore, the use of words such as “shall”, which are peremptory in form, and negative language such as “not exceeding 60 days in the aggregate” do not foreclose the necessity to examine the object and purpose or the consequences of non-compliance so as to determine whether the provision is directory or mandatory, and the contention to that effect is not tenable. For the purpose of understanding the object and purpose of the time limit, it is pertinent to examine the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 44 of 2016. The object and purpose of the said time limit is to ensure that such applications are decided expeditiously so as to enable secured creditors to take physical possession quickly and realise their dues. Moreover, as stated earlier, the consequences of noncompliance with the time limit are not specified and the sequitur thereof would be that the district collector/district magistrate concerned would not be divested of jurisdiction upon expiry of the time limit. Petition disposed off.
|