TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to maintainability of the Revision Petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner submits that in view of the order dated 3.5.2011 passed in Crl.RP No.525/2011 by this Court, Office objection is not maintainable. He further submits that since the trial Court has passed an order on a petition filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 'the Securitisation Act') and under sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, no Act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate can be questioned, Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of Crl.RP No.67/2013 Cr.PC before this Court is maintainab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secure asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him- (a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and Crl.RP No.67/2013 (b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 of the Crl.RP No.67/2013 Securitisation Act specifically says that no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall be called in question in any Court or before any authority. Securitisation Act does not provide for appeal or revision as against an order made under section 14 of the Securitisation Act. Hence, the aggrieved party can approach this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC, which is identical to the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I answer the points for consideration. 9. In the result, I pass the following order. Revision Petition is rejected as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to take such course of remedy available in law. Since Revision P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
