Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 15 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Multiple writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 4270, 4307, 4385, 4388, 4476, 4666, 4723, 4735, 4476 of 2026) were filed by several banking institutions – Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Canara Bank, UCO Bank, Jana Small Finance Bank Limited, HDFC Bank Limited and Yashoda Hospital & Research Centre Ltd – against the State of Jharkhand, various district magistrates/collectors and individual borrowers/guarantors.
  • All petitioners sought a direction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to compel the concerned District Magistrates or Chief Judicial Magistrates to dispose of their applications for assistance in taking possession of secured assets, which had remained pending well beyond the statutory period of 30 days (extendable to 60 days).
  • The petitioners argued that the delay hampers their ability to take possession, auction or hand over the assets, thereby obstructing recovery of defaulted loans and increasing non‑performing assets.
  • The State, through the Advocate General, contended that magistrates are over‑burdened with revenue, development and other duties, and that the 30‑day timeline is directory, not mandatory.
  • The Court examined the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly Sections 13 and 14, and reiterated that the power to take possession rests with the secured creditor, while the magistrate’s role is purely ministerial – to verify the affidavit and issue an order within the statutory period.
  • Extensive jurisprudence was cited, including Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. (2023), NKGSB Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, R.D. Jain & Co. v. Capital First Ltd., C. Bright v. District Collector (2021), Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar (2013), and India Infoline Home Finance Ltd. v. Nageswara Rao Perikala (2026), all emphasizing that the magistrate’s duty is ministerial, time‑bound, and not adjudicatory.
  • The Court also addressed the argument that the District Magistrate’s powers under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act could interfere with SARFAESI proceedings, holding that the two statutes operate independently and the magistrate cannot blend their jurisdictions.
  • A factual report submitted by the magistrates showed alarming pendency: Ranchi – 146 applications; Dhanbad – 308; East Singhbhum – 203; Bokaro – 65; Hazaribagh – 64; other districts – single‑digit numbers. Additionally, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Jamshedpur had 59 pending applications and that of Dhanbad 24.

Final Outcome

  • The Court directed each District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the pending Section 14 applications within the timeframes they had undertaken during the virtual hearing: Ranchi – within six weeks; Hazaribagh – within four weeks; Bokaro – within four weeks; Dhanbad – within eight weeks; Jamshedpur – within eight weeks.
  • All other districts were ordered to clear their pending applications within three weeks from the date of the order.
  • The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, was directed to dispose of his 59 applications within 60 days; the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, within 30 days; other judicial magistrates with single‑digit pendency within 15 days.
  • The Court mandated that the District Magistrates/Deputy Commissioners and Chief Judicial Magistrates maintain a separate register for SARFAESI applications, recording the date of filing, date of consideration, date of disposal and date of order execution. An officer or senior clerk must update the register fortnightly, and the Deputy Commissioner must counter‑sign it.
  • The registers are to be placed before the magistrates every 15 days and reviewed by the Principal District Judge/Judicial Commissioner monthly. Copies may be furnished under the Right to Information Act to ensure transparency.
  • The Court emphasized that the magistrate’s function under Section 14 is ministerial, not adjudicatory, and that any delay defeats the purpose of the Act and benefits defaulters.
  • All the writ petitions and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Topics: SARFAESI Act, Bank Recovery, Judicial Direction